Case law

New Jersey State Board of Optometrists v. S. S. Kresge Co.

113 N.J.L. 287 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 17, 1934

And a statute prohibiting the sale at retail, in any store or established place of business, of “any spectacles, eyeglasses, or lenses for the correction of vision, unless a duly licensed physician or duly qualified optometrist … But this clearly does not constitute the practice of optometry.

FLORENTINO v. CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 28, 2021

“Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, 137 S. … (2011)), the Court again finds the Officer Defendants’ conduct to be within the scope of qualified immunity.

Interstate Wrecking Co. v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission

57 N.J. 342 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 1971

In that year the Palisades Interstate Park Commission was established by the compact as the “joint corporate municipal instrumentality of the States of New Jersey and New York” with appropriate provision for the transfer … While these provisions clearly support the administrative separations between the states in the Commission’s operations they hardly serve to narrow the breadth of the sue and be sued clause. Cf. 109 N. J.

Holster v. Board of Trustees of Passaic County College

114 N.J. Super. 228 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 22, 1971

At the very inception of a proposal to establish a county college, the State enters the picture. … But there is nothing in the declaration which is at all inconsistent with the intention, clearly expressed before, to furnish bond-funding “benefits” to qualifying counties.

Ackerman v. Lagano

172 N.J. Super. 468 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 19, 1979

To determine whether malicious prosecution has been established here requires a closer examination of the elements required in such an action. … Neither issue need be resolved, *474 however, in view of what this court views as a failure of plaintiff to establish damages which constitute "special grievance."

Alfano v. Schaud

429 N.J. Super. 469 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 14, 2013

The facts are so clearly in Defendant’s favor, that a summary judgment is justified. See Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Nowell Amoroso, P.A., 189 N.J. 436, 445 [ 916 A.2d 440 ] (2007). … The district court denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion, which was based on qualified immunity and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on *476 interlocutory appeal, taking the plaintiff

Thorp v. Board of Trustees of Schools for Industrial Education

6 N.J. 498 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 12, 1951

And a state statute requiring students at the state university to take a course in military science and tactics was held valid as against the contention that its enforcement would abridge the privileges and immunities and … Here, also, the teacher becomes qualified by taking the oath. The judgment of the State Board of Education is affirmed.

MINOR v. DILKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 16, 2022

With the exception of cases involving “obvious violations” of prior Supreme Court rulings, a plaintiffs claim will only be “clearly established” where “the violative nature of the particular conduct [was] clearly established … Jan. 21, 2020) (“there is not any clearly established law determining the appropriate classification and housing of transgender inmates”), As there is no clearly established law supporting a Due Process claim premised

WILLIAMS v. BOSLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 30, 2023

In other words, “[w]hen analyzing a qualified immunity claim, [courts] consider [two prongs:] (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly … This is because, depending on which factual narrative is adopted by the factfinder, the Court’s analysis of qualified immunity and what clearly established law may apply will change substantially.

Pasqua v. Council

186 N.J. 127 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 8, 2006

It is the purpose of the child support hearing to establish that very point. … Those who draft and promulgate such rules, or omit to do so, are protected by legislative immunity.

Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Crowell

245 F. 668 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 17, 1917

It seems to be perfectly clear, and to require no discus *672 sion to establish, that the statute does impose liability upon the defendants. [2] Has a defense sufficient to shield the defendants from liability been pleaded … The extent of immunity is fixed by the law providing for the creation of the artificial body or person, and such a provision as the one in question, being a part of the law of creation, declares the immunity of those who

Murakush Caliphate of Amexem Inc. v. New Jersey

790 F. Supp. 2d 241 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 13, 2011

thus it cannot ever qualify for appointment of pro bono counsel, see United States v. … Such claims of "diplomatic immunity” are without merit.

State Farm Indemnity Co. v. Warrington

350 N.J. Super. 379 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 26, 2002

One of those exceptions, clearly not applicable here, is custodial interrogation by law enforcement officers. Id. 101-02 , 703 A.2d 901 . … Furthermore, the trial judge may consider staying the examination until resolution of the criminal proceedings, unless plaintiff can establish some overriding urgency in its investigation. See e.g. Whippany Paper Bd.

Phillips v. State, Dept. of Defense

98 N.J. 235 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 21, 1985

N.J.S.A. 34:15-7. 4 Moreover, there are other provisions in article 2 of the Workers’ Compensation Act that are clearly inapplicable to the military situation. … If the action against the Department establishes that there was no causal relationship between the incident and the injury, plaintiff may be barred from proceeding against defendants in the civil action.

Pruticka v. Posner

714 F. Supp. 119 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 9, 1989

Under a 1979 amendment, Congress established two “preferences”: one for families occupying substandard housing; another for families that had been involuntarily displaced. … Whether Defendant Is Immune From Suit Under § 1983 Defendant further argues that he is immune from suit under § 1983 by virtue of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J. S.A. § 59:1-1 et seq.

Doe v. Greater New York Blood Program

304 N.J. Super. 287 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 28, 1997

Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome,” which acronym was later changed to AIDS for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. … Indeed, the discovery clearly establishes that New York Blood Center complied with all then existing regulations in the collection of the unit of blood in question.

RODRIGUEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 19, 2021

the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right” and “the right was clearly established” at the time of the objectionable conduct. … immunity test is two-pronged: whether plaintiff has alleged or shown a violation of a constitutional right, and whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant

GONZALEZ v. ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 13, 2021

Hidalgo argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … 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

SCOTTI v. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 13, 2022

There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established. … Therefore, to be entitled to qualified immunity, Davis must show that Plaintiff’s constitutional right was not “clearly established” at the time of the violation.

Gilchinsky v. National Westminster Bank

311 N.J. Super. 339 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1998

Further, the judge directed that a hearing be held in the future to determine the full extent of R &.H’s damages. 1 Meanwhüe Güchinsky established an IRA account with a branch of the National Westminster Bank NJ (NatWest) … On April 28,1995, Gilchinsky initiated a separate action by way of complaint and order to show cause seeking a summary determination that her IRA was immune from levy.