Case law

Boncek v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

105 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 10, 1952

(Cases cited.) * * Today, even more clearly than in the past, ‘the federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish it.’” 299 U.S. at pages 113, 114, 57 S.Ct. at pages … Russell & Co., (1938, 288 U.S. 476 , 53 S.Ct. 447, 450 , 77 L.Ed. 903 , which declared"that “the federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish it.”

Hampton Hosp. v. Bresan

288 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1996

plaintiff asserts that its agents were "doing their job and attempting to help a young man overcome a serious drug problem" by finishing his therapy. [1] *377 The judge found that "[d]efendants have offered no proof to establish … The judge also determined that defendants offered no qualified medical proof to contest Dr. Andrew's conclusion that Lawrence was not well enough to be discharged within forty-eight hours of his discharge request.

McLelland v. Moore

343 N.J. Super. 589 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 4, 2001

In such instances, a jury is not qualified to say without guidance which purposes for possessing a weapon are unlawful and which are not. … Especially with the emphasized passage, they invited the jury to make the determination that only the trial court was qualified to make.

Certisimo v. Heidelberg Company

122 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 6, 1972

HEIDELBERG COMPANY, A COMPANY ESTABLISHED IN WEST GERMANY, AND HEIDELBERG EASTERN, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DEFENDANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS, v. … Clearly, however, if it is not foreseeable that the foreign party's actions will have an effect in the forum state, then there can be no "voluntary action calculated to have an effect in the forum state."

Bernatowicz v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

785 F. Supp. 488 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 10, 1992

Thereafter, around August, 1987, Sponseller told Bernatowicz that Ber-natowicz did not qualify for “85 point” benefits. … I need not address this argument, because plaintiffs’ state law claims are clearly preempted by ERISA.

Errichetti v. Merlino

188 N.J. Super. 309 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 2, 1982

In reviewing an act of the Legislature it is only when the prohibition clearly appears in the Constitution that it may be said to exist. … She sought to argue the unconstitutionality of the immunization requirement on the basis of her own religious freedom, but was denied standing.

Mutch v. Division of Taxation

9 N.J. Tax 612 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 15, 1988

An employer may not enter into a SEP agreement with an employee unless all eligible employees have established an IRA. … Contrarily, because of the clear distinction between the two sections, by explicitly limiting only section 401(k) contributions from gross income in the 1983 amendment, N.J.S.A. 54A:6-21, the Legislature clearly indicated

State v. Bass

189 N.J. Super. 461 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 22, 1983

penalty than a jury not so "qualified." … than a "non-qualified" jury to convict a defendant *464 and sentence him to death.

Viviano v. CBS, INC.

251 N.J. Super. 113 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 1991

By its verdict the jury found that plaintiff had established all of the elements of fraudulent concealment, and the record supports its finding. Cf. Carrino v. … Defendants' remaining grounds of appeal are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Riehm v. Director

7 N.J. Tax 88 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 5, 1984

The Director contends that the court is free to fashion a reasonable remedy regardless of the basis of the violation, and he points to the Salorio Court’s citations to cases concerning Equal Protection, the Establishment … Matthews, supra, clearly supports the conclusion that, in some circumstances, the court can permit a remedy that violates taxpayers’ constitutional rights.

GOVATOS v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2024

The Act established “the right of a qualified terminally ill patient, protected by appropriate safeguards, to obtain medication that the patient may choose to self-administer in order to bring about the patient … First, Defendants appear to challenge the patient-Plaintiffs’ standing because neither established that their illnesses (i.e., Stage IV lymphoma and Stage IV metastatic breast cancer) qualify them as “terminally

Agha v. Feiner

198 N.J. 50 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 26, 2009

We agree with the Appellate Division that, over a defense objection, the testifying physicians could not establish the substance of the contested MRI and that only an expert qualified to interpret an MRI could do so. … Thus, on objection, neither could establish the substance of the MRI report.

Haggerty v. Cedeno

267 N.J. Super. 114 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 1993

Clearly neither Florida nor Delaware have any interest in this case. … In the tort field, immunities, which furnish "absolution from liability" stand as conflicting exceptions to the general principle that there should be reparation for wrongful injury.

Jermaine C. Spence, Etc. v. Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 2025

N.J.S.A. 26:6A-4 establishes specific procedures: a. … A plain reading of Section 6 reveals there are conditions to the attachment of immunity.

DOE v. SMALL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 2, 2023

Qualified immunity focuses on whether a plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated and how “clearly established” those rights were at the time of the violation. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … Finding that La’Quetta is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not abuse John Doe herself would put qualified immunity at odds with § 1983 and undermine well-established theories of § 1983 liability.

BELLINGER v. THE CITY OF PERTH AMBOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2025

Plaintiff argues that qualified immunity does not shield Defendants because they arrested him without probable cause, in violation of his clearly established constitutional rights. (Opp. at 11-13.) … “Under our precedents, officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at

State v. Haight

31 N.J.L. 399 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1866

The City Council of Charleston , the immunity from state taxation of securities similar to those owned .by these banks, was established. … This was clearly erroneous. The corporation to which the debt is due is not a non-resident, and by the' plain language of the tax law of this state, this credit should have been given to the party taxed.

Brett T. Duffy v. the Absecon Police Department

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 30, 2025

To establish a prima facie LAD failure-to-accommodate claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) "qualifies as an individual with a disability, or [] is perceived as having … Hagans, 233 N.J. 30, 38 (2018), the Absecon police defendants would—at this stage of the litigation—be unable to rely upon qualified immunity for dismissal of that claim.

GAGE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2022

Nor does it identify any clearly established law that the Court overlooked when ruling that Ruschke was entitled to qualified immunity. … None of Gage’s arguments persuade the Court that its immunity rulings—which rested on /egal grounds—were in error.

Hamilton v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

366 N.J. Super. 284 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 28, 2004

Demskie, 892 F.Supp. 503, 506-07 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (granting qualified immunity to prison official in prisoner’s § 1983 action on the ground that it was not clearly established that reasonable suspicion must exist to support