Case law

DUNCAN v. CITY OF PATERSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 10, 2025

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a clearly established right. See City of Escondido v. Emmons, 586 U.S. 38, 42 (2019). … To determine whether the officers might have violated a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes, the Tenth Circuit looked to the cited cases. See id. at 877–80.

M.R. v. Smolar Group, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 10, 2024

POINT V BECAUSE [PLAINTIFF]'S LIBERTY RIGHT IN CONTINUING AS AN RCRP RECIPIENT WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF HER RETURN TO STATE PRISON, SESSOMES WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR DEPRIVING HER OF … "The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

New Jersey v. Corrigan

139 F. 758 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · Jul 28, 1905

It clearly appears bjr the act that, upon a proper petition being filed in the state court, that court at once loses its jurisdiction, although any bail given therein is continued in force. … It is an all-sufficient answer to say, as has already been said,, that there is no classification established by the act as counsel suggests.

Rhodes v. Marix Servicing, LLC

302 F. Supp. 3d 656 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 2018

RESPA For Plaintiffs to establish their RESPA claim, they must show: "(1) the submission of a qualified written request by a borrower to a loan servicer for information relating to the servicing of the loan, (2) a failure … The Court again finds disputed factual issues as to whether the transfer fees were improperly included, and if so, whether Zucker is immune from liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c).

State v. Odom

116 N.J. 65 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 1989

In the past he had been qualified 1,000 times as an expert in trials involving narcotics distribution. The trial court found Detective Tierney qualified to testify as an expert. … The court held the police officer was clearly qualified to testify as an expert witness concerning the identification of narcotics, the way in which narcotics are packaged when they are for sale as opposed to when they are

Cammarata v. Essex County Park Commission

26 N.J. 404 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 3, 1958

Each of these letters stated: “Your appointment to this Department is subject to your clearly understanding and accepting the provisions shown on the sheet attached hereto.” … Costa, those Probationary Patrolmen failing to qualify for appointment, be terminated. * * *” B.

Watford v. UNSAT. CLAIM & JUDGMENT FD. BD.

113 N.J. Super. 495 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1971

In the case at bar an examination of the communications by the attorney *504 for the uninsured motorist and the language of the complaint that was sent to the Fund, indicate quite clearly that substantially all of the information … It is but a short step from destroying the sovereign immunity of the State to the detriment of its citizens to judicial incursion into the Fund's cacoon of claimed immunity.

Gonzalez v. Young

418 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 1976

Gonzalez did not qualify under the provisions of § 4810 of the New Jersey Public Assistance Manual for a grant of emergency assistance. Miss Fondi made phone calls to Ms. … JURISDICTION The complaint states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , which provides a cause of action for a deprivation, under color of state law, of any “rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws

Lionel Corp. v. Grayson-Robinson Stores

27 N.J. Super. 54 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1953

It purports to include nonsigners within the immunity granted by the Miller-Tydings Act. … Competition, whether desirable or not, must be lawful, as is clearly indicated by the many laws which give redress when it is unlawful. Suppression of competition is incompatible with the precepts of a free society.

Melick v. Township of Oxford

294 N.J. Super. 386 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 1996

Applying these principles here, in our view, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Melick established a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge. … Clearly, the LAD is broad and pervasive.

Krebs v. Rutgers

797 F. Supp. 1246 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 22, 1992

This contention would qualify as an exception to FERPA’s anti-dissemination rule. … The court has some pause certifying these representatives given the absence of qualified counsel.

New Jersey v. Yeutseun Chen (In Re Yeutseun Chen)

227 B.R. 614 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 18, 1998

Clearly — most likely those forms were submitted falsely. They did not represent the correct information that should have been submitted. Mr. … (“Even before Gunter , a state’s waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity by voluntary appearance was well-established.”).

Berel Co. v. Sencit F/G McKinley Associates

710 F. Supp. 530 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 3, 1989

The Agency, established by the New Jersey Legislature in 1983, 13 emerged as the product of a consolidation of two previously existing agencies, the New Jersey Housing Finance Agency (“HFA”) (established to assist in financing … was, we do not think that mere preparation of the Agreement will suffice to establish liability. 7 .

PASQUALE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2025

Once a defendant has raised qualified immunity, it is over to the plaintiff --- who then “has to come forward and show what the clearly established law actually is.” Courney v. … If a plaintiff does not produce “sufficiently on- point indications that the relevant law is clearly established, then the defendant gets qualified immunity.” Id. (cleaned up).

ROBERTS v. COUNTY OF ESSEX

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 17, 2023

The City failed to satisfy its burden, however, to establish the premise of its argument, i.e., that its employees entitled to qualified immunity. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)) (“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

CHAUDRY v. FARABELLA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2020

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.” … constitutional right” and “the right was clearly established” at the time of the objectionable conduct.

Franklin Estates, Inc. v. Tp. of Edison

142 N.J. Super. 179 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 1976

Clearly the reasons given initially for rejection should be the same as those ultimately relied upon in order to permit the taxpayer to concentrate his efforts on proving his entitlement. … Here the taxpayer was offered full opportunity to establish compliance with mandatory statutory criteria as to the amount of land being farmed and the income derived therefrom.

Alston v. Parker

452 F. Supp. 2d 597 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2006

R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and invoking various defenses such as defects in the pleading, witness immunity, qualified immunity, and sovereign immunity. … , and (3) Parker, Singer, and Navratil are entitled to qualified immunity.

United States v. Bendetti

498 F. Supp. 450 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 1980

THE COURT: You don’t feel qualified to do it without Mr. Goodman’s help? MR. MOMOT: I do feel qualified; however, I do understand his expertise in this area- THE COURT: In what area? MR. … Nonetheless, it is clearly in the best interests of each defendant that his own lawyer open for him. Goodman will not be permitted to open jointly for the three defendants.

State v. Gora

148 N.J. Super. 582 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1977

A. 2A:81-17.2a2, which conferred a self-executing use and fruits immunity upon him. We disagree. … A. 2A:81-17.2a2 granted him, as a public employee, automatic use immunity in exchange for his grand jury testimony, and therefore he was immune from prosecution in any criminal proceeding based upon that testimony or evidence