Case law

Essex Cty. Welfare Div. v. Harris

189 N.J. Super. 479 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 1983

And see L. 1983, c. 17, § 14, recognizing the scientific reliability of specific genetic testing, including the HLA test, in affirmatively establishing paternity. … NOTES [1] While the question of the retrospectivity of L. 1983, c. 17, is not directly before us, it is clearly a question which will be implicated on the remand.

Harris v. Middlesex County College

353 N.J. Super. 31 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 2002

HARRIS' CLAIM FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIOR TO DISCOVERY AND THE PREPARATION OF EXPERT REPORTS, AND IN THE FACE OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT CLEARLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE TORT IN ESTABLISHED CASE LAW, … DCR argues: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REQUIRING APPELLANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SHE SUFFERED FROM A SEVERE OR SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING CONDITION IN ORDER TO QUALIFY AS "HANDICAPPED" AND ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DISABILITY

Kozikowski v. Delaware River Port Authority

397 F. Supp. 1115 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 3, 1975

Continuing, the Hudak court noted: [A]bsent any evidence of an intent by Congress to change pre-existing law, there seems no reason for a District Court to put aside that law so clearly established. … The compact contains a “sue and be sued” clause. 8 The issue to be resolved, therefore, is whether this clause operates as a waiver of any claim of immunity from suit.

Pilkington v. BALLY'S PARK PLACE

370 N.J. Super. 140 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 2003

We concluded that such an assertion constituted a response from the employer, once a prima facie case was established, and did not go to the question whether plaintiff was qualified. … The Third Circuit held that the district court was not clearly erroneous in finding the plaintiff qualified, even though she did not have the terminal degree which was one of three objective criteria for promotion listed

Regent Corporation of Union, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

27 N.J. Tax 577 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 17, 2014

Where the taxpayer does not clearly document its claim to investment company status through attached riders, the claim will be denied.”). … Where the taxpayer does not clearly document its claim to investment company status through attached riders, the claim will be denied.

American Hawaiian Ventures, Inc. v. Latuharhary

257 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 1966

Such a lien cannot be established since no maritime contract with it nor injury of which it was the instrumentality is alleged. 1 Benedict 617 (6th Ed. 1940). … The first question clearly is a matter within this Court’s broad discretion. On the basis of the entire factual situation appearing from the record, I conclude it must be answered in the affirmative.

Baker v. National State Bank

312 N.J. Super. 268 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 1998

Noting that an employer may decide for itself which employees are better qualified, the court said: “Nevertheless, a plaintiff can take his case to a jury with evidence that he was clearly better qualified than younger employees … The poor performance of Shannon and Castillo after plaintiffs’ terminations was part of plaintiffs’ proof that plaintiffs were clearly better qualified.

M.G. v. J.C.

254 N.J. Super. 470 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 27, 1991

Moreover, the court found that given the criminal nature of the statute, it must be strictly construed so as to avoid “ensnaring behavior that is not clearly proscribed” (at 809) Following the Simpson line of reasoning was … Given the fact that compensatory damages may be difficult to define, a shorthand liquidated damage claim is also established (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24).

Fischer v. Allied Signal Corp.

974 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 4, 1997

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under federal law, a plaintiff must show that (1) he was in a protected group; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) his employment nevertheless was terminated or … The statements promise neither to protect Fischer from termination, nor to immunize him from the effects of a reorganization.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers of America, Local No. 410

139 N.J. Eq. 97 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 5, 1946

The same proofs which establish the highly coercive conduct also established that appellants otherwise violated the laws of this state (R. S. 2:29-77.1(e)). … state and are, therefore, not immune from restraint and injunctive relief.

KHALIL v. CITY OF PATERSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 8, 2023

Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … And the second qualified immunity question is whether the “right was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.” L.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 836 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2016) (cleaned up).

County of Morris v. Fauver

153 N.J. 80 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 9, 1998

Prior to 1970, the State could not be sued in actions in tort or contract as a result of its sovereign immunity. Frapaul Constr. Co. v. … Kugler, Jr., Attorney General, Report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Sovereign Immunity 9 (May 1972).

Township of West Orange v. Whitman

8 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 1998

It “is clear ... that a member of the general public may not qualify” as a foreseeable plaintiff. … Pituso established that when government instrumentalities are entitled to immunity from local zoning ordinances, they may not “exercise[] [that immunity] in an unreasonable fashion so as to arbitrarily override all important

SAYEED AL SHEHAB VS. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP. (L-5277-14, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 2017

Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right asserted by plaintiff was not clearly established. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity so long as New Jersey law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful under the circumstances. Brown, supra, 230 N.J. at 106.

Patel v. Soriano

369 N.J. Super. 192 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 2004

With respect to plaintiff's antitrust claims, the judge found that IGH was immune from such liability under N.J.S.A. 56:9-5(b)(5). … He clearly had suffered both personal and professional humiliation and had been deprived of the "blessing" of patient care.

RHETT v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 3, 2019

The doctrine of sovereign immunity extends to any state agency that qualifies as an “arm of the state” and to state officials acting in their official capacity. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. … The Third Circuit has made it clear that DCA is “a principle department ‘established in the Executive Branch of State Government’ and thus qualifies for sovereign immunity.”

Avallone v. Avallone

275 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 15, 1994

Avallone, his former spouse, pursuant to the provisions of an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). … Finally, we reiterate the principle enunciated in Landwehr, supra, that `the burden of establishing ... immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset will rest upon the spouse who asserts it.'

Marinelli v. Mitts & Merrill

303 N.J. Super. 61 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 1997

The actions of Whitehall in this case fall far short of those in Calderon and are clearly outside of the standards established in Millison. … Society far Establishing Useful Mfrs., 2 N.J. 136 , 65 A.2d 833 (1949)). In Cummings v.

MANENTE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2026

Qualified immunity does not apply however, when the facts “taken in the light most favorable to the party claiming injury,” show (1) that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly … But that right was not clearly established when Officer Mattura arrested Plaintiff in 2020.

Fleming v. UPS

255 N.J. Super. 108 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 1992

Tort Claims Act immunity. … Since Fleming cannot establish the elements of a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Tenth Count is dismissed. X. KERN IS ALSO ENTITLED TO PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY AND TORT CLAIM ACT IMMUNITY.