Case law

US Bank, N.A. v. Hough

210 N.J. 187 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 22, 2012

The language of the regulation itself clearly indicates the remedy that applies when an excessive loan is secured by an affordable housing unit. … That regulation clearly states that “[a]ny loan issued in violation of [the applicable affordable housing regulations] shall be void as against public policy.”

NJ Sports & Exposition Auth. v. McCrane

119 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 1971

The conveyance of land envisioned in the act clearly meets the trust qualifications. … The Legislature alone may determine the duties and the interrelation of the public posts it establishes or authorizes to be established.

CONTE v. GOODWIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 15, 2021

“To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established … “A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Sharp v.

Borough of Maywood v. United States

679 F. Supp. 413 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 25, 1988

Since the complaint, as well as the record as a whole, fails to reveal the existence of a lien held by the government, the Borough has failed to establish that the Congress has waived sovereign immunity on this statutory … Even if reasonable, the decisions are null and void in the face of such a clearly conflicting Congressional directive.

MORRISON v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2024

Zylkiewicz is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “shields government officials from suit and from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory of constitutional … Consequently, even if Zylkiewicz were mistaken, he would still be entitled qualified immunity. IV.

Bender v. Adelson

187 N.J. 411 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 19, 2006

He has excellent credentials in the field of cardiac surgery, but he is clearly not qualified to *422 give opinions in this case. It’s not me saying that. It’s Dr. Hochberg. … Hochberg “is clearly not qualified to give opinions in this case.” IV.

Tevis v. Tevis

79 N.J. 422 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 5, 1979

of wrongfully inflicted injuries, dictate that immunity, when used as a shield to defeat recovery, be established affirmatively. … An examination of the facts of this particular case shows clearly that dismissal will not further the purposes underlying the two year limitations period prescribed by N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2.

O'Neill v. City of Bayonne

99 N.J.L. 430 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 4, 1924

or which may be established for the police force in such municipality.” … L. 678 (at p. 681). *434 Prima facie the prosecutor was a de jure officer until the contrary is established by competent proof.

Herman v. Herman

17 N.J. Misc. 127 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 8, 1939

It is petitioner’s admitted purpose.in pressing her present application to establish the arrearages as a debt against defendant, upon which she may take out process of execution. … To grant petitioner’s application would clearly violate this condition. Although defendant’s common law obligation to support petitioner still persists, it has remained unliquidated as to amount.

Cooper v. Mayor

299 N.J. Super. 174 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1997

All plaintiffs qualify as “Department Heads.” … See N.J.S.A. 59:13-3 (providing that “[t]he State of New Jersey ... waives its sovereign immunity from liability arising out of ... a contract implied in fact”).

Perlberg v. Geminder

20 N.J. Super. 191 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 1952

There is nothing beyond his own claim to ten years' experience as an executive to sustain his contention that he qualified as an expert. … The qualifications of experts are left to the discretion of the court, and its decision is conclusive unless clearly *197 shown to be erroneous as a matter of law. Rempfer v.

DeAngelis v. Hill

180 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 11, 2004

“Statements of opinion, as a matter of constitutional law, enjoy absolute immunity.” Dairy Stores, Inc., supra, 104 N.J. at 147 , 516 A.2d 220 . … Therefore, Turf failed to establish actual malice. Ibid. B.

Snyder v. Baumecker

708 F. Supp. 1451 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 1989

It is now well settled that, absent a clear waiver by a state of its eleventh-amendment immunity or a proper congressional abrogation of that immunity, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims brought by an individual … Thus, plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint clearly would not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

BEY v. KRANZ

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

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Second, the court must “decide whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Id.

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.S.A. 40:41A-129). But it is intended to permit sweeping change in county organization. … The course of decision under N.J.S.A. 40:41A-26, already outlined, indicates that the Charter Act empowers a county to eliminate agencies with ancient and well-established organizations.

Corrigan v. Gassert

27 N.J. 227 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 2, 1958

The fact that a person is uninsured does not establish that he is financially irresponsible. We conclude that the language of N. J. S. … The decedent’s widow, the plaintiff herein, was clearly a “qualified person” to give notice prior to her appointment as administratrix ad prosequendum. Murray v. Gassert, 23 N. J. 22, 34 (1956).

State v. McGeary

129 N.J. Super. 219 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1974

Johnson, supra : It is, of course, most essential, in view of the heavy impact the result can have, that proper administration of the test be clearly established before the reading is admitted in evidence. … Johnson, supra , "it is * * * most essential * * * that proper administration of the test be clearly established before the reading is admitted in evidence," and "this includes full proof that the equipment was in proper

Giles v. Gassert

23 N.J. 22 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 3, 1956

A. 39:6-78, provided the claimant established, inter aliathe giving of the notice prescribed by section 5, N. J. S. … That which is clearly implied is as much a part of the law as that which is expressed. Brandon v. Board of Com'rs of Town of Montclair, 124 N. J. L. 135, 143 (Sup. Ct. 1940), affirmed 125 N. J. L. 367 (E. & A. 1940).

State v. Wolf

46 N.J. 301 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 24, 1966

Therefore, he contends the double jeopardy clauses of both Eederal and State Constitutions give him complete immunity against further exposure to any punishment greater than life imprisonment. … Although it may be argued persuasively that in principle the two cases are repugnant, still in a footnote to his opinion in Green , Justice Black said they are “clearly distinguishable.” 355 U.

ANTHONY PACE, SR. VS. TOWNSHIP OF NUTLEY(L-5518-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 2017

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … "The dispositive point in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether a reasonable officer in the same situation clearly would understand that his actions were unlawful."