Case law

Reid v. Gorsuch

67 N.J.L. 396 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 24, 1902

system of government the most familiar example •of “election” is that which is participated in by the people at large; at the same time it requires the use of the phrase “popular election,” or “election by the people,” to clearly … That these distinctions, and the uses of the terms “elect” and “appoint,” are well established in our fundamental and statute laws can readily be demonstrated.

State v. Fay

127 N.J.L. 77 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 25, 1941

The challenged conversation with Haussling, in our opinion, was clearly admissible. … Rep. 724 ), fairly, accurately and clearly states the applicable law. It is free from reversible error. 3.

ALLAH

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 28, 2026

clearly established at the time of the proceedings. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions “‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

In Re Incorporation of Village of Loch Arbour

25 N.J. 258 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 4, 1957

The constitutional validity of the classification established by N. J. 8. A. 40 .T57-1 et seq. … As a constitutionally recognized scheme of government, that form seems clearly appropriate for the specified population unit when localized as described.

Kelly v. Bally's Grand, Inc.

285 N.J. Super. 422 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 1995

Bally expressed its policy on promotion as follows: It is the policy of Bally's Grand to encourage qualified employees to apply for promotional opportunities and to grant every consideration to qualified in-house candidates … Further, plaintiff facially appears to have been qualified for the position.

Caballero v. Martinez

376 N.J. Super. 223 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 2004

The claimant must be one intended to be protected and he must clearly *971 demonstrate that he belongs to a class for whose benefit the Fund was established." Sumner v. … In the within matter, however, no proofs were presented that would indicate that the plaintiff intended to establish his domicile in New Jersey.

Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor

346 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 27, 2001

Also unaddressed is the defense that omitting Lederle was a sound strategic decision constituting reasonable professional judgment and thus immune from malpractice characterization. See, e.g., Ziegelheim v. … The medical literature clearly confirms that they did not deviate from accepted standards of medical practice in doing so.

Abbruzzese v. Berzak

412 F. Supp. 201 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 3, 1976

Dismissal based on sovereign immunity. Denied. See 39 U.S.C. § 401 granting the Postal Service power to sue and be sued in its official name. 4. Objections to parties. Denied. … Obstruction of the mails clearly violates this fundamental duty and is full and adequate ground for removal. The foregoing opinion constitutes the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Schultz v. Kott

131 N.J. Super. 216 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1974

as well as from the terms of the act itself and prior court construction, the intent of Congress in establishing the APTD program appears clearly to have been to provide assistance for needy persons unable to engage in a … Their expressed concern clearly was deprivation of earning capacity due to medically demonstrable permanent and total disability.

Williams v. Department of Human Services

228 N.J. Super. 529 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 1988

Some recipients also qualify for a grant of food stamps. … The law then establishes a mechanism whereby such public assistance actually is to be provided by municipalities and counties pursuant to guidelines established by the DHS.

State v. DeGeralmo

83 N.J.L. 135 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 5, 1912

room, it being shown that he'was a garbage collector, and upon a comparison of finger marks found upon one of the posts of a portico, by which the guilty person ascended from the ground to the window of her room, a duly qualified … Tf this was true then he has established an alibi.

DICKERSON v. WALLKILL VALLEY REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 1, 2020

To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the Court considers two questions: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether that right was “clearly established … Government actors are entitled to qualified immunity unless they violate a constitutional right “so clearly established that ‘every reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violates that right.’

FEHL v. BOROUGH OF WALLINGTON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2021

Qualified immunity, on the other hand, provides for immunity to suit. Lozano v. New Jersey, 9 F.4th 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2021). … See also Lozano, 9 F.4th at 245 (“A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless the plaintiff shows that the officer violated ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Dia Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Reno

831 F. Supp. 360 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1993

See 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (listing categories of aliens who qualify as excludable). … the United States waives its sovereign immunity.

WALKER v. CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 1, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant

Colacurcio Contracting Corp. v. Weiss

20 N.J. 258 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 12, 1955

The right to trial by jury secured by the Constitution does not immunize a jury verdict from nullification in any case where it clearly and convincingly appears that the verdict was the result of mistake, partiality, prejudice … At the time of the adoption of our first Constitution the motion was the established common-law procedural device for relief against the verdict, addressed, however, not to the trial judge, but to the trial court en banc.

In re Contest of the Election of Ray

26 N.J. Misc. 56 · New Jersey Circuit Court · Dec 26, 1947

of our courts (In re Freeholders of Hudson County, supra) as follows: ■ "While it is true that the legislature cannot add to the constitutional qualifications of electors, it must, nevertheless, devolve upon that body to establish … He should not be prevented from taking his seat as councilman, unless clearly ineligible under some constitutional or statutory provision. The language of R. S. 19:23-15; N. J. S.

Vassallo v. Bell

221 N.J. Super. 347 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 1987

In *371 our view, this clearly so qualifies, and the trial judge erred in failing to recognize this. … While discarding the malice label, because of many meanings which the term has developed, the Court continued to adhere to the principle that to overcome a qualified privilege "a plaintiff must establish that the publisher

Richard W. Berg v. Hon. Christopher J. Christie

436 N.J. Super. 220 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 2014

With respect to the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, we add that the State may not "be forced to entertain in its own courts suits from which it was immune in federal court . . . ." … Clearly the Legislature was well aware that COLAs were part of the various pension benefit plans.

In Re Havens

229 B.R. 613 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 9, 1998

The matters before this court clearly involve matters arising under Title 11 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 524 (a). Accordingly, this court has general jurisdiction over the Debtors’ claims. B. … The court, upon review of the statutory structure of the JUA, also found that the State, although it initially established the JUA as a independent entity, did not immunize itself from payment of the debts of JUA by virtue