Case law

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.

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

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.

Russell Forde Hornor v. Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 8, 2024

Thus, "[e]ven when one of the Act's provisions establishes liability, that liability is ordinarily negated if the public entity possesses a corresponding immunity. " Rochinsky v. … N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b) "establishes the principle that even common-law and statutory immunities not contained in the Act can prevail over the Act's liability provisions." Id. at 409.

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.

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.

Vedutis v. Tesi

135 N.J. Super. 337 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 1975

While this court is mindful of the fact that the Tort Claims Act represents an abrogation of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity and, therefore, ought to be strictly construed, State v. … N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2.1 clearly bridges that gap, and reading the two statutes in pari materia serves to harmonize the law relating to the same subject matter.

Grigoletti v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

118 N.J. 89 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 5, 1990

Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 51 N.J.Super. 139 , 143 A.2d 762 (App.Div.1958), the fact that those decisions were used to support a new principle of law by no means establishes the fact that they clearly foreshadowed … Additionally, Woolley was clearly perceived at the time of the decision as bold, new law. See, e.g., “To Fire at Will?

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

Clark v. Buchko

936 F. Supp. 212 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 1, 1996

immunity. … Defendants move to dismiss Counts One, Two and Three on the basis that no constitutional violation occurred, that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and that no unconstitutional policy or custom existed which promoted

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.

Fagan v. City of Vineland

804 F. Supp. 591 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 30, 1992

His comment bears repeating, and its reasoning is adopted here: Were an absolute grant of immunity, precluding state tort suits, sufficient to establish a right to a federal remedy, a pedestrian negligently struck by a police … more broad-based immunity from suit for any injury resulting from a police chase (a section not specifically asserted by defendants as ground for immunity).

Cooper Hospital v. City of Camden

68 N.J.L. 691 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 9, 1903

“The legislature shall not pass private, local or special laws * * * granting to any corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever. … supplement of 1849, the county commissioners of a county through which the road passed w-eare authorized to *701 subscribe for stock in the railroad company and issue bonds to pay for the same, provided a majority of the qualified

NEGRETE v. STATE OF NJ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 29, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … immunity’s second prong, the Individual Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “there was no clearly established precedent establishing that their conduct violated the Plaintiff's rights

Schulman v. Kelly

54 N.J. 364 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 1, 1969

The conclusion was that because sheriff’s offices in Yew Jersey generally performs no investigative or other law enforcement activity, the experience per se would not qualify the applicant, who also would have to establish … We do not here consider the extent of the word “investigator” in (a) except to state that plaintiff’s occupation in Hudson County is clearly encompassed thereby.

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.

PETLOCK v. NADROWSKI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 10, 2023

An award of qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability and suit “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong is not satisfied. See id. at 244-45. Here, the Court exercises its “sound discretion” and assesses the “clearly established” prong first.

In re Human Tissue Products Liability Litigation

255 F.R.D. 151 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 12, 2008

Discovery on the narrow issue of good faith immunity has been open since December 2007. 5 See CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 545. … To select thirty-eight (38) documents in a single category of documents, which are further subdivided into five additional categories by defense counsel, not only violates this Court’s Order, but clearly contravenes the Court

Rutherford Education Ass'n v. Board of Education

99 N.J. 8 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 11, 1985

Luke’s Catholic Church, 27 N.J. 22 (1958), in which immunity of charitable organizations for tort liability was overturned retrospectively, in view of the fact that validity of the immunity had been questioned for a considerable … not to investigate accidents in which spousal immunity would have precluded a claim).

Card v. Wilkins

61 N.J.L. 296 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1898

In view of this evidence the trial judge was asked to charge the jury that if they found that plaintiff was explicitly and clearly forbidden by defendants or their agent to do the act in which he received his injury he could … The doctrine would be deprived of any practical application if the immunity of the master would not exist except the servant knew the danger, for if that danger was patent and obvious, it was one which the employe took.the