Case law

Ormond Simpkins, Jr. v. South Orange-Maplewood School District

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 8, 2024

A-2181-21 13 immunity once a ground is established for the employer's vicarious liability under 59:2-2(a)."). … The 1972 Attorney General's Task Force Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:2-1 explains the Act re-established the "immunity of all governmental bodies in New Jersey" following its abrogation in Willis v.

FISHER v. COUNTY OF MERCER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2025

Qualified Immunity Finally, Defendants argue that Ellis is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate Plaintiff’s clearly established rights. … constitutional right is clearly established.”9 Karkalas v.

GREENE v. ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2023

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from suit and from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory of constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … the law was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

United States v. 662 Boxes of Ephedrine

590 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 2008

The common questions of law and fact at issue in the two proceedings clearly warrant consolidating these actions. … Therefore, the United States is not immune from suit based on the seizure of the defendant property.

Af v. Dlp

339 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 2001

However, the Court clearly announced that "the standard we enunciate is applicable to all persons who have willingly, and with the approval of the [biological or adoptive] parent, undertaken the duties of a parent to a child … Without such a requirement, a paid nanny or babysitter could theoretically qualify for parental status.

Bellocchio v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

16 F. Supp. 3d 367 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 15, 2014

To have a protected property interest, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it” or “a unilateral expectation of it,” but rather must have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” … Ann. §§ 59:4-2 , 4-3 (establishing liability of public entity for injury caused by dangerous conditions on its property).

Delaware River & Bay Authority v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots

45 N.J. 138 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 1965

Article 1, par. 19 of the Constitution clearly recognizes the distinction between public and private employees. … The Authority here is an agency of the State and its activities clearly involve a proper exercise of governmental functions.

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.

Wynfield Corp. v. Killam Associates

385 N.J. Super. 20 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2006

Thus, in Neelthak, we declined to “posit a cause of action such as plaintiffs assert against staff employees or contractors independent of the immunities preserved by the Tort Claims Act,” especially where the law required … Defendant further contends that, contrary to the trial judge’s ruling, secretarial charges clearly qualified as out-of-pocket expenses for which separate billing was otherwise permitted under the statute.

Hunt v. Hospital Service Plan of NJ

33 N.J. 98 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 1960

Such cases do not qualify for payment of compensation benefits by reason of failure to meet the conditions imposed by the act. … A. 34:15-15.1, which was obviously designed to establish a means for reimbursing the Plans where they have paid the bills for treatment and subsequently a workmen’s compensation award is made against the employer.

Helduser v. Kimmelman

191 N.J. Super. 493 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 1983

Clearly, these provisions are' appropriate to civil *505 actions, not criminal actions. … Clearly, the focus was upon the need to defend and indemnify state employees against civil liability for damages.

Pino v. Board of Trustees

309 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 1998

To qualify as a traumatic event the applicant for accidental disability retirement must establish that the “source of the injury itself was a great rush of force or uncontrollable power.” … the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly

Stehney v. Perry

907 F. Supp. 806 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 6, 1995

of her security-clearance revocation is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Clearly, such an exemption “can arguably be said to result in a better-qualified group” of applicants for particularly important positions, Anderson, 845 F.2d at 1223, and therefore is consistent with equal protection.

McNeil v. McDonough

515 F. Supp. 113 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 1980

These well established principles and practices, however, have not been clearly applied in employment discrimination cases, whether under Title VII or § 1981, et seq., even in non-jury cases. … or, if equally qualified, had less seniority.

Van Dunk v. Reckson Associates Realty Corp.

210 N.J. 449 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 26, 2012

Nor can the context prong, which is a legal determination, be satisfied because plaintiff knew or should have known that the propellers were operating when he inserted his hand into the chute; the labels on the machine clearly … Notwithstanding that the employer’s deception did not rise to the level presented in Laid-low, it clearly affected the Court’s totality of the circumstances analysis on the conduct prong. See ibid.

In re Dykas

261 N.J. Super. 626 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 29, 1993

In a submission to the Board, the DMV asserted its wish to waive the one-year limitation, but indicated that it was uncertain whether the type of injury suffered by petitioner qualified for the benefit sought. … Without any evidence to countervail the clearly expressed opinions of Dr. Moskowitz, the Board’s finding that petitioner did not come within established criteria was without adequate basis.

BYRD v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY JOHN/JANE DOE DECISION MAKERS 1-10

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Next, the Court proceeds to step two of the qualified immunity analysis, wherein “the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant's conduct violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional

In re the Petition to Compel Testimony of Tuso

73 N.J. 575 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1977

Yet clearly any such interaction would have violated Tuso’s privilege. … But while federal precedents indicate that a court has no discretion to determine whether a grant of immunity would be in the public interest, they also establish that courts have ample authority to check prosecutorial abuses

Restivo v. Church of Saint Joseph of Palisades

306 N.J. Super. 456 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 30, 1997

For example, if a church owned an abutting property used for a restaurant or hotel, the church in that instance would clearly be a commercial landowner.'... … Defendants already enjoy the substantial immunities created by the Legislature in the Charitable Immunity Act.

Carroll v. Delaware River Port Authority

89 F. Supp. 3d 628 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 2015

See Brief in Support of Magistrate Appeal, p. 4 (“Plaintiff maintains that the need to be qualified at the time of the promotions ... is not at issue in this case.”). Plaintiffs position is clearly wrong. … According to Defendant, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff was not physically capable of performing the jobs for which he applied (i.e., not qualified), and that Plaintiff knew he was not qualified.