Case law

O'CONNELL v. State

171 N.J. 484 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 2002

Further, because the plaintiff was a student of the college, the plaintiff clearly was a beneficiary of the college. Id. at 484 , 713 A.2d 503 . … Any liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person.

Estate of Soberal v. City of Jersey City

529 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 27, 2007

Qualified Immunity Turning to the Defendant officers’ claims of qualified immunity, the Court declines to grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendant officers because immunity does not apply. 11 Qualified immunity is … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the action] was taken.”

Bostrom v. New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services

969 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 26, 2013

Finally, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because any such right was not clearly established by precedent. 1. … Therefore, while a violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights may have occurred, Defendants Broglin and Schuh are entitled to qualified immunity as it was not clearly established that their conduct was unlawful.

Brown v. Brown

86 N.J. 565 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1981

Applicability of subsection d, namely, the State’s exercise of discretion with respect to when it would proceed, does not per se establish immunity, for immunity is not available if “a court concludes that the determination … A front loader and qualified maintenance personnel located at a nearby maintenance yard were accessible.

C.N. v. Ridgewood Board of Education

146 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 15, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants seek cover under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Municipal officers enjoy qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Carollo v. Supermarkets General

251 N.J. Super. 264 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 23, 1991

Defendant's successful motion for summary judgment relied primarily on the qualified immunity provided by N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11e. … We conclude therefore that the statute does not afford qualified immunity from a malicious prosecution action instituted by the merchant.

Woodsum v. Pemberton Tp.

172 N.J. Super. 489 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 29, 1980

In order to establish their liability under the qualified immunity test, plaintiffs must show that the plan, design and construction of the water plant were undertaken with the malicious intention to deprive them of their … constitutional rights or must establish that the municipal entities knew or reasonably should have known that their act in constructing the water plant would violate clearly established constitutional rights of plaintiffs

Rodriguez v. Torres

60 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 1999

immunity because it is not clearly established that a hostile work environment claim may be predicated upon “reprisal rather than protected status,” nor is it clearly established that a hostile work environment claim not … Qualified Immunity Analysis Against this backdrop of legal precedent, we must determine whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity based upon his argument that it was not clearly established as of the relevant time

General Motors v. City of Linden

279 N.J. Super. 449 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1995

Therefore, defendants have not established the firmly recognized immunity at common law required to support a claim of absolute immunity from suit under the Federal Civil Rights Act. … of qualified immunity.

Centennial Land & Dev. Co. v. Tp. of Medford

165 N.J. Super. 220 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 3, 1979

Neb. 1976) (planning commissioners granted qualified immunity for *234 denial of variance); [2] David v. Nuss, 432 F. Supp. 44 (S.D. Tex. 1977) (Civil Service Board members granted qualified immunity) with Condosta v. … This court is of the view that the qualified immunity formula established in Wood v. Strickland would not sufficiently guard the policy sought to be protected here.

John M. Gately and Patty Sue Gately v. Hamilton

442 N.J. Super. 542 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 22, 2015

The father and his current wife, as co-plaintiffs, argue that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendants' conduct is subject to protection under qualified statutory immunities … immunity.

Houston v. Township of Randolph

934 F. Supp. 2d 711 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2013

Qualified immunity “[Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability as long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), because “qualified immunity provides government officials with leeway in applying difficult or murky law, even if that law is clearly established.”

Luthe v. City of Cape May

49 F. Supp. 2d 380 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 25, 1999

Qualified immunity “shield[s officers] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to

Crawn v. Campo

136 N.J. 494 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 21, 1994

and, consequently, do not warrant an immunity. … A witness, although otherwise qualified as an expert by virtue of specialized education, training, or experience to testify on the rules that generally govern a sport, would not thereby be qualified as an expert on a specific

Burke v. Deiner

190 N.J. Super. 382 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 1983

Winne, 14 N.J. 119, 125-126 (1953). *390 The trial judge had to identify and apply three qualified privileges and immunities that protect the commissioners and accountants from liability even though their statements are legally … We reject the commissioners' claim of absolute immunity. C. The third qualified privilege or immunity to be identified pertains to the accountants' audit.

Denise Brown v. State of New Jersey and John Steet

442 N.J. Super. 406 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 11, 2015

Finally, we consider whether Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity under the Civil Rights Act. The Court has recently addressed the qualified immunity of police officers in Morillo v. … "Second, the court must determine 'whether the right was clearly established.'" Ibid.

Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation

678 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity State officials performing discretionary functions are generally immune from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person should … Assuming arguendo that the individual Defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because such a right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged

Davis v. City of Camden

657 F. Supp. 396 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 1987

Whether an official may prevail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Dell, 804 F.2d 796 , 803 (2nd Cir.1986) (clearly established in 1983); Ward v. County of San Diego, 791 F.2d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir.1986) (clearly established in 1981) with Fann v.

Santiago v. City of Vineland

107 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 2000

The Defendants contend that even if Santiago can establish that they did not act with probable cause, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Santiago’s federal claim. … Because the qualified immunity analysis set forth in the brief of Romano and Gallo clearly contends that qualified immunity is available to the police officer defendants, and does not mention Romano and Gallo in their positions

Bocchino v. City of Atlantic City

179 F. Supp. 3d 387 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2016

are entitled to qualified immunity. … in question was clearly established.”