Case law

BYRD v. ATLANTIC CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

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

To overcome the immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … He violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right and therefore is not entitled to qualified immunity. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542.

Kleinfeld v. the General Auto Sales Co.

118 N.J.L. 67 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 12, 1937

It was, therefore, clearly obiler diclum. Crescent Ring Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 103 N. J. L. 89; 133 Atl. Rep. 106 . … The provisions of the statute and the rules of court permit of no doubti Suffice it to observe that plaintiff's burden to establish ownership in himself, absolute or qualified, with the right of exclusive possession at the

Township of Middletown v. N/E Regional Office, United States Postal Service

601 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 10, 1985

Consequently, the court will operate on the assumption that the Postal Service is the sole defendant and, thus, that the arguments about the propriety of removal and the immunity from zoning regulations as they relate to … Thus, the relevant authorities establish that the Postal Service is not bound to observe the land use regulations of Middletown Township.

HASTINGS BY HASTINGS v. Hastings

33 N.J. 247 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 18, 1960

And it should not be overlooked that the principle plaintiff asks us to establish would be applicable to injuries suffered in the home as well as in the family car and that an injured parent would also have to be permitted … Whatever force this argument may have on other types of action, it clearly has no bearing on the type of action instituted in the instant matter. In Borst v.

State v. Cagno

211 N.J. 488 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 8, 2012

He was again granted immunity but persisted in refusing to answer questions, and he was held in contempt. … Thus, any possibility of confusion is irrelevant and not “clearly capable of producing an unjust result.” R. 2:10-2. C.

Citizens for Chart. Change, Essex Cty. v. Caputo

151 N.J. Super. 286 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 1977

This is so because, though they are clearly not qualified to vote ( N.J.S.A. 19:32-15), their elective voice would nevertheless be considered in determining the number of signatures required in order to place the referendum … The decision clearly *294 contemplated that no further challenges to signatures would occur.

Schofield v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJ. TP. OF DENNIS

169 N.J. Super. 150 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 1979

We are clearly of the opinion that the trial judge erred. … Since the use was never valid, the Simmermans could not be deemed to have had a nonconforming *156 use immune from the more restrictive 1975 ordinance.

State ex rel. Schalk v. Wrightson

58 N.J.L. 50 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1895

All that the Engeman case decided is, that a justice of the Supreme Court was qualified to preside in the trial of an indictment in the Passaic Quarter Sessions. … If we regard substance and not mere form, in neither case could judges, appointed in contravention of the provision of the fundamental law, be qualified to act. .

Thompson v. BD. OF EDUCATION, CITY OF MILLVILLE

12 N.J. Super. 92 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 1951

This case is clearly distinguished from the case at bar by the judicial declaration of the court in the later case of Kane v. Board of Education of Montclair, 20 N.J. Misc. 7 , 23 A. 2d 277 ( Sup. … This is a definite governmental function, and the inclusion of the idea that football games are operated as a profit-making enterprise does not establish a transition from a governmental to a proprietary function.

Espinal v. Arias

391 N.J. Super. 49 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 2007

To succeed in his lawsuit, plaintiff was required to establish that within a reasonable degree of medical probability he sustained permanent injuries as a result of the automobile accident. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a. … Said another way, it establishes a threshold for an injured person to sue for noneconomic damages.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Whitman

136 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 22, 2001

Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses The parties have also called for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims that the Regulations violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Equal … designated by the federal Surface Transportation and Assistance Act of 1982 (the “STAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 31111 et seq., as those roads that make up the "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and those classes of qualifying

FREEMAN v. SCHAFFER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 5, 2019

qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s Section 1983 and NJCRA claims. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Bahrle v. Mirabelli

107 N.J. Super. 361 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 1969

The proofs establish that in 1965 the State undertook a survey of all New Jersey municipalities to determine whether any employees who had not established membership in PEES were required to establish membership as a condition … In my judgment the State complied with its duty by circularizing to the municipalities and their certifying agents by way of pamphlets and other periodicals information which clearly indicated the mandatory requirement of

Dowd v. Howell Township

15 N.J. Tax 82 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 16, 1995

Plaintiff maintains that a pending bill to amend the Farmland Assessment Act establishes that grazing is currently a qualifying agricultural use and that grazing and boarding horses differ. *87 Assembly Bill 2520 (1995) and … Quite clearly, the Legislature has recognized that fees for breeding, boarding, and grazing horses cannot, under current law, be considered in determining the $500 minimum income requirement.

McKelvey v. Pierce

173 N.J. 26 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 10, 2002

Clause clearly prevents review by a civil court. … It reasoned that the first amendment does not immunize the church from all temporal claims made against it. As we noted in Costello Publishing Co. v.

In Re Referendum on City of Trenton Ordinance 09-02

201 N.J. 349 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 6, 2010

The protest referendum is a fundamental element of the covenant that the Faulkner Act establishes between the government and the people. … The burden is on the party seeking to defeat the Faulkner Act to clearly establish the existence of a contrary legislative intent. VI.

Garafola v. Rosecliff Realty Co., Inc.

24 N.J. Super. 28 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 19, 1952

Fromer to answer questions propounded of him on the ground that he was not a qualified expert. As stated in Rempfer v. … We are of the opinion that as a prerequisite to admissibility the photograph should have been authenticated by a qualified observer definitely establishing the true reproduction of the conditions existing at the time of the

Paul v. National Educ. Ass'n

195 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 8, 1984

The record in this case, thus viewed, demonstrates some factual differences which might well impact on the question of probable *430 cause, as Judge Griffin clearly realized. … The fact that Lissa Brown and Charles McCarty may have had less than a full complement of the characteristics a Utopian world would design for a teacher or a school board member does not establish a want of probable cause

GONZALEZ v. BOROUGH OF RED BANK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 28, 2020

Perez has not satisfied the first step of the qualified immunity analysis, at this stage. … Resolution of these questions is critical to any determination of qualified immunity.

State v. Jefimowicz

119 N.J. 152 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 30, 1990

If the record on its face clearly establishes that defendant is a repeat Graves Act offender, a court may sentence defendant to an extended-term sentence. … Because the record clearly establishes defendant’s prior Graves Act conviction, no further hearing was required to clarify or elucidate the nature of that conviction.