Case law

WINBERRY REALTY PARTNERSHIP VS. BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD (L-7126-10, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 31, 2019

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Moreover, there is no presumption of qualified immunity; rather, the immunity is considered "an affirmative defense that the defendant must establish." Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 354 (2000).

Mahwah Township v. Bergen County

3 N.J. Tax 513 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 20, 1981

The court fully acknowledges that it is equally as clear that every square foot of the complex has not been trod upon yet the quilt of activities established by these witnesses clearly demonstrates that the complex was utilized … The defendants argue that the purpose of the supplement clearly was to disallow a rebate to otherwise qualified Bergen County municipalities.

Miller v. Muscarelle

67 N.J. Super. 305 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1961

This was to sustain plaintiff's burden of establishing a failure by defendants to conform with a standard of reasonable care in the use of the conveyor. … Clearly he did not "direct" the use of the conveyor in the particular manner it was being used on this occasion.

Hyson v. Neubert

820 F. Supp. 184 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 3, 1993

And the other requirement of Helms has clearly not been met. … The court has considered whether defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity under the rule of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

MOORE v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 6, 2024

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability in Section 1983 cases where their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Clear Establishment of Right Even if a constitutional violation had occurred, the Patrolling Officers did not violate a clearly established right.

Angelo v. Shapiro

168 N.J. Super. 459 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 2, 1979

Clearly, the Charter Act is not intended to modify such things as the laws of contracts or torts or civil service laws (N. J. 8. A. 40:41A-129). … A. 40:41A-26, already outlined, indicates that the Charter Act empowers a county to eliminate agencies with ancient and well-established organizations.

Catton v. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n

242 N.J. Super. 5 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1990

Clearly, the legislative statement and the statutory provision when read together place the burden on the JUA, through its servicing carriers, to ascertain whether the applicant meets the qualifying provisions of the statute … Thus, it is firmly established that insurers must deal with applicants as laymen and not as experts in the ever changing law of underwriting. Id. Moreover, in Merchants Indem. Corp. v.

ITIOWE v. TRUMP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 14, 2022

Qualified Immunity The DAG Defendants and the DCP&P Defendants have also raised qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. [Docket No. 66-1, at 22–27.] … Plaintiff’s claims are also barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and most of the Defendants are immune from this suit under the doctrines of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and/or absolute

Hull v. Plume

131 N.J.L. 511 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 20, 1944

“But like all general rules it has its exceptions and one of the most generally recognized •exceptions is the one applicable here, to wit, that where the acts of the defendant plrysicians are so manifestly and clearly negligent … to other members of his profession, and that mere proof of error or mistake is not sufficient to establish negligence.

NIEVES-HALL v. CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2019

“{Ujnless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … The second prong of the qualified immunity analysis asks whether the right was so clearly established that Director Ambrose should have known that he was committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances.

Decalcomania Mfg. Corp. v. City of Camden (In Re Decalcomania Mfg. Corp.)

142 B.R. 670 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 19, 1990

New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 268 F.Supp. 568, 574 (D.N.J.1967) (counties and municipalities do not partake of the Eleventh Amendment immunity enjoyed by the states, although they clearly are public bodies and in many cases … Bankruptcy Code, then the Debtor, Decalcomania received “less than a reasonable equivalent value in exchange for such transfer” and that the debtor “became insolvent as a result of such transfer or obligation.” 7 In order to establish

MCKENZIE v. PRESSLER, FELT & WARSHAW, LLP

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

“[T]he Act was clearly intended to reestablish a system in which immunity is the rule, and liability the exception.” Bombace v. City of Newark, 593 A.2d 335, 341 (N.J. 1991). … Nonetheless, even absent qualified immunity, it is unlikely that PFW’s amercement claim would succeed.

IDUMONYI v. BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

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

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Kim is entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Feit v. Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield

385 N.J. Super. 470 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 28, 2006

They are entitled to immunity if they acted in good faith and without malice. … Billington, [ 291 N.J.Super. 382 , 677 A.2d *482 771 (App.Div.1996) ] provides that doctors are public figures, and therefore, they must show malice in order for, to establish defamation.

BRUSCIANELLI v. HICKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 24, 2021

” and second, the court must determine “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … State Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity consists largely of legal boilerplate.

State v. State Troopers NCO Ass'n of New Jersey, Inc.

179 N.J. Super. 80 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 1981

The arbitrator based his decision on the fact that section A of NCO’s proposal clearly gave the Division the sole authority to establish the criteria to be used in evaluating candidates for promotion. … qualified,” the proposal was procedural in nature and did not bear on criteria for promotion.

State v. J.F.

262 N.J. Super. 539 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 1993

Accordingly, the issue raised by defendant concerning the parole disqualifier is clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). … Such an order would clearly be one banishing defendant from the State; and its validity would be a question of first impression in New Jersey.

State of New Jersey v. George A. Myers

442 N.J. Super. 287 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 8, 2015

"Thus, appellate courts should reverse only when the trial court's determination is so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction." … Instead, defendant argues the well-established New Jersey precedent allowing the odor of marijuana to establish probable cause is no longer good law after the CUMMA.

HEARD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 2025

clearly established law” (citation omitted)). … New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency, 814 F.3d 164, 171 (3d Cir. 2016), as amended (Mar. 21, 2016) (explaining that caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice

Reck v. Director, Div. of Taxation

345 N.J. Super. 443 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 2001

qualify under section 401(k). … To the extent that plaintiffs seek to establish a deduction from taxable gross income, they have the burden of establishing a clear statutory basis therefor. See Amerada Hess Corp. v.