Case law

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).

LOZANO v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2020

The court must withhold qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage if, based on the plaintiff’s adequately supported version of the facts, defendants violated the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights … established because “the violative nature of particular conduct [was] clearly established.’”

Lyon v. City of Elizabeth

43 N.J.L. 158 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1881

S. 472 ,) the immunity from execution of property held by a city for public uses was very broadly recognized. In Emeric v. … In the exercise of their powers, governmental and public, they are clothed with the immunities of sovereignty.

Bigel v. Director of the Division of Local Government Services

173 N.J. Super. 541 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 8, 1980

property attributable solely to the State aid received during a tax period from the State Aid for Schools Fund established in N.J.S. 54A:9-25 as computed in section 4 of this act. … It clearly is applicable. The March 6, 1979 judgment under review is reversed.

Chisolm v. Manimon

97 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 18, 2000

immunity against such claims. … Section 1983 Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , an injured party may pursue a claim against a *625 state actor based on “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United

State in Interest of JG

283 N.J. Super. 32 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 1995

Thus, whereas Schmerber, supra, is useful in establishing that mandatory blood tests implicate the Fourth Amendment, the test applied by the Court in that case would not be applicable here. … These statements and factual findings are clearly hearsay and cannot be considered by this court. See N.J.Evid.R. 801, 804; Thompson v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 229 N.J.

JAMES v. GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 2020

Qualified Immunity GTL alternatively argues that it is entitled to qualified immunity. GTL Br. at 30-32. … Thus, like in Richardson, Defendants are not entitled to claim qualified immunity. See 521 U.S. at 412.

BEAM v. WOLF

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 14, 2023

The Court will begin its qualified immunity analysis with the second prong, which asks whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of its violation. … Therefore, because Plaintiffs have failed to establish that a constitutional right was violated, there is no need to address the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

CHITESTER v. DEPT OF CHILD PROTECTION PERMANENCY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 28, 2023

Here, in response to the DCPP Defendants’ qualified immunity argument, Plaintiff merely cites Supreme Court cases for the broad proposition that parents have a recognized fundamental right to “establish a home and bring … Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (“This Court has ‘repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.””) (quoting City & Cnty. of San Francisco y.

State of NJ v. Bazin

912 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 21, 1995

The Ninth Circuit had dismissed the state’s appeal, reasoning that although the state had a clearly established right to appellate review under Arizona law, it had no such right under federal law, and federal law exclusively … Downey, supra (purposeful and knowing slap causing stinging sensation established disorderly persons offense of simple assault).

Novack v. CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY

149 N.J. Super. 542 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 1977

Subsequent cases have established a qualified privilege for any communication "with relation to a subject-matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, and to a person having … Clearly, the statement made by Cities Service was one in which they had an interest, and the recipient of that communication, the service station dealer, had a corresponding interest.

State v. Rama

298 N.J. Super. 339 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 1997

Moreover, when the Legislature authorized a discretionary sanction, it used language which clearly expressed that intent. … Similarly, § 2.1 establishes the period of suspension, thereby removing even that degree of discretion from the sentencing court.

STATE OF NJ, DEPE v. Gloucester Env. Mgt. Serv.

821 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 1993

The Supreme Court of New Jersey has thus noted that the Act intended to re-establish governmental immunity except as liability is otherwise permitted, stating: "The Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, reestablished … The New Jersey Tort Claims Act at N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b) states that "[a]ny liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity."

State v. Clarke

56 N.J.L. 62 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1893

politic and corporate in fact and in law whenever, at a special election to be called for that purpose, as hereinafter provided, it may be so decided by a majority of votes of the electors of said proposed borough who are qualified … The two statutes would clearly appear to be applicable to different classes of ■this character of municipalities.

State v. Kraft

134 N.J. Super. 416 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 1975

established before the reading is admitted into evidence. … It is concluded that in a prosecution for driving while under the influence of drugs the expert who examined and tested the drug must be produced by the State to clearly establish the presence of the narcotic drug proscribed

Felicia Pugliese v. State-Operated School District of The City of Newark

440 N.J. Super. 501 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 2015

She argued it was illegal because she was not "highly qualified" to teach social studies. … An agency has the obligation to make decisions clearly with its reasons spelled out on the record.

East Ridgelawn Cemetery Co. v. Frank

77 N.J. Eq. 36 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 8, 1910

by the act nor consistent with the legislative scheme. * * * By implication, the language recognizes the right of the association to make use of the machinery of certificates of stock to manifest a debt owing by it; but clearly … and immunities.

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.

Frank Briscoe Co. v. RUTGERS, STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY

130 N.J. Super. 493 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 3, 1974

The comments to said law enacted by the Legislature state, * * * For purposes of establishing liability in the State of New Jersey this definition ["Public Entity"] is specifically intended to include such entities as the … In the 1956 act there are two provisions which clearly indicate there was an intent to preserve the then existing corporate powers.

Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China National Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.

702 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 1, 2010

The [H.R.] goes on to state: “The specific *337 purpose of the Sherman Act modification is: to more clearly establish when antitrust liability attaches to international business activities.” Id. at 2492. … Once the defendant’s status as a “foreign state” is established, the FSIA presumes the defendant’s immunity to be the rule, not an exception, see Saudi Arabia v.