Case law

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.

East/West Venture v. Fort Lee

286 N.J. Super. 311 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1996

This provision clearly conflicts with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-49, which states that a site plan approval grants the developer three years of immunity from major zoning changes. … East/West's project does not qualify under these provisions. But the project would qualify if the high-rise were to be used as a hotel, since its gross floor area exceeds 200,000 square feet.

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

Russo v. BD. OF TRUSTEES, POLICE.

206 N.J. 14 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 2011

Both Russo and the Board agreed that the matter could be decided on the record previously established, in addition to supplemental *25 briefing following Patterson . … Applying Richardson and Patterson , the ALJ concluded that the Board misapplied the reasonable person standard established in Patterson .

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.

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.

VINCENT HAGER VS. M&K CONSTRUCTION (DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 13, 2020

The "claimant bears the burden . . . to establish his claim." Id. at 599 (citing Kahle v. Plochman, 85 N.J. 539, 548 (1981)). … The compensation judge considered both treatment methods and concluded that medical marijuana was the "clearly indicated option."

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

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.

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

Commercial Trust Co. v. Hudson County Board of Taxation

87 N.J.L. 179 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 9, 1914

It may he well to say, by way of parenthesis, that the expression that such classification was “forced upon the state’'’ by federal legislation, ought not to be misleading in view of the context which clearly shows that what … of the statute, we have nothing to add to the opinion excepting to say that statutes for the performance of governmental -functions, which will not be invalidated by the courts upon an agreed state of facts, are equally immune

Cammarata v. ESSEX COUNTY PARK COMMN.

46 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 3, 1957

Costa, those Probationary Patrolmen failing to qualify for appointment, be terminated, with their active duty to be discontinued at the end of their tour of duty on March 15, 1956, * * *. … That which is clearly implied is as much a part of the law as that which is expressed. Alexander v. New Jersey Power & Light Co., 21 N.J. 373, 379 (1956).

Cherrits v. Village of Ridgewood

311 N.J. Super. 517 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 29, 1998

Following Monell , it was clearly understood that formal, adopted legislative policy of a local government could potentially expose the governing body to liability under § 1983. … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

Zelenka v. BPOE OF THE US

129 N.J. Super. 379 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 1974

Undoubtedly that right is qualified in numerous respects by our public laws, and it is similarly qualified in respect of its exercise in the course of one's participation in the activities of private associations. … A member of a Republican club, for example, could not expect to be allowed by the courts to campaign for a Democratic candidate and nevertheless remain immune to expulsion from the club for cause.

New Jersey District Kiwanis International v. Gandhi

284 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 1994

The Kiwanis sponsored Key Club qualifies for inclusion in this category. … Defendant now believes he is immunized from responsibility because an unenforceable contract exists between his fourteen year old son and plaintiff. Defendant is mistaken.

Futterman v. Board of Review

421 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2011

She further claims that the paid leave days do not qualify as remuneration. … We also reject Futterman's claim that the paid leave days did not qualify as remuneration.

MASSEY v. HENDRICKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 2020

Where a plaintiff’s claim fails to clear either hurdle, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity, and a reviewing court may therefore address only the clearly established prong where it is dispositive of the immunity … conduct [was] clearly established.”

JEM Marketing v. Cellular Telecommunications Industry Ass'n

308 N.J. Super. 160 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 1998

Clearly, the principle we apply in this case has its limitations in the context of other situations. … Marsh & McLennan Co., Inc., 117 N.J. 539, 565-66 , 569 A.2d 793 (1990) (plaintiff must establish abuse of privilege by clear and convincing evidence).

State v. Deegan

126 N.J. Super. 475 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 6, 1974

A fair reading of this paragraph clearly indicates again that the Commission must determine whether to grant a disability pension, and not the examining doctor. … They were told they would be called as grand jury witnesses provided they voluntarily waived their privileges and immunities and executed a written waiver.

Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp.

804 F. Supp. 614 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 23, 1992

Under these tests,, the Regents qualifies as an alter ego of California, and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment protection. … immunity.