Case law

Boyce v. Eggers

513 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants’ motion for summary judgment includes a claim that the individual officers (Beppel and Conte) are entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendants committed any constitutional violation when Eggers filed her criminal complaint, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for that aspect of the case. C.

Mountain Lakes Bd. of Education v. Maas

56 N.J. Super. 245 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 22, 1959

He was preeminently qualified in his field, and the court properly permitted him to testify. … Defendant's acts were clearly in direct conflict with prevention, with *273 which immunization is so intimately related.

Diodato v. Camden County Park Commission

162 N.J. Super. 275 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 1978

[Emphasis supplied] Clearly this section extends immunity to the Park Commission from plaintiff's allegation that his injury was proximately caused by that defendant's failure to enforce (by way of signs, literature police … Under plaintiff's analysis of the facts it argues that Diodato qualified under either test.

Faul v. DENNIS

118 N.J. Super. 338 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 28, 1972

A case which is somewhat analogous to the issue and upon which plaintiff places much reliance is Jackson, supra, which held that the qualified immunity of a municipality is an affirmative defense. … There is no logical basis to find that the nature of the immunity is something other than that established in Reingold merely because the doctrine has been abrogated.

Norris v. Borough of Leonia

160 N.J. 427 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 1999

immunity for failure to make an inspection or make an inadequate or negligent inspection of its property, and N.J.S.A 59:2-3, establishing immunity for its exercise of judgment or discretion relative to the curb in question … The statutory standard is clearly expressive of a public policy that is inconsistent with the reasons that sustained the creation of the blanket common law municipal immunity for nonfeasance in respect of dangerous conditions

Bradley v. United States

164 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 10, 2001

Unless a plaintiff alleges a violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known,” a federal employee is immune from suit. Harlow v. … It cannot be found here that there was a clearly established rule that prohibited Defendants conduct on that night. The Defendants would therefore be entitled to qualified immunity.

McCullough v. City of Atlantic City

137 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2001

Qualified Immunity Under § 1983 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against the individual Defendants are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing … Gable, 823 F.2d 723 (3d Cir.1987), the Third Circuit, in considering the issue of qualified immunity, stated that “as of 1982 the law was clearly established that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation for

Sonntag v. Papparozzi

256 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 2003

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The Third Circuit has ruled that parole board members are entitled to absolute *325 immunity in their adjudicative functions, and qualified immunity for their activities in administrative functions … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Court must determine, in a qualified immunity analysis, whether the Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Corleto v. Shore Memorial Hospital

138 N.J. Super. 302 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 1975

McCracken, albeit that plaintiffs would obviously have to establish wrongdoing on the part of that doctor in order to prevail against the other defendants. … . *311 Certainly an immunity would not be lightly granted.

Dupont v. United States

197 F. Supp. 3d 678 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 2016

The Court must now decide whether CAMcare, and by extension the United States, qualifies as a charity and is immune from suit. … CAMcare was a defendant in a similar FTCA action in Young, and the court addressed whether CAMcare qualified for absolute charitable immunity or whether it was a hospital N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8 and qualified for a cap on damages

Maudsley v. State

357 N.J. Super. 560 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 27, 2003

. *203 On balance, therefore, there is this issue of qualified immunity. … The judge's legal conclusion of law that no qualified immunity existed also merits our acceptance.

Tonelli v. Board of Education

185 N.J. 438 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 28, 2005

But even if we were to conclude that the Board’s organizational structure does not clearly exclude it from the Act, that would not be the end of the inquiry. … the statute confers either total or limited immunity (“nonprofit corporation,” etc.) have developed an established connotation in our law, i.e., a private charity which depends on charitable contributions and whose funds

Rupp v. Brookdale Baptist Church

242 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 1990

It is a not-for-profit organization, established exclusively for religious, charitable and educational purposes. … A qualifying organization does not lose its statutory immunity merely because it charges money for its services. See, e.g., Schultz v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese, supra ; Gray v. St. Cecilia's School, supra .

Matter of Hearing on Immunity for Ethics

96 N.J. 669 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 3, 1984

, statutes, or rules on attorney discipline. 4 We also note five jurisdictions that provide what might be called “qualified” immunity or privilege, 5 and one in which such an immunity has been proposed. 6 Five other states … have judicial precedents establishing either an *677 absolute or a qualified privilege for complaints in the context of libel actions specifically. 7 Under English common law, the “absolute privilege” from defamation actions

United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY CAMDEN

88 N.J. 317 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 18, 1982

The provision clearly is intended to give the State Treasurer flexibility in establishing goals. … Clearly, State Treasurer approval of a local affirmative action plan pursuant to the Law Against Discrimination does not immunize the plan against constitutional and statutory attack.

Timber Properties, Inc. v. Chester Tp.

205 N.J. Super. 273 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1984

However, certain defendants enjoy qualified or absolute immunity from liability for damages under § 1983. See Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 637-638 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 673 (1980). … This liability is qualified by N.J.S.A. 59:3-1(b), which states that "[t]he liability of a public employee established by this act is subject to any immunity of a public employee provided by law."

Salt & Light Co. v. Mount Holly Township

15 N.J. Tax 274 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 8, 1995

Parker involved, not a local property tax exemption, but the Charitable Immunity Act. NJSA 2A:53A-7 to -11. The question was whether a nonprofit housing corporation qualified as a charity under the act. … For-profit hotels and motels may accept government subsidized homeless persons, but they do not, at least in so far as the record in this case establishes, accept individuals who fail to qualify for government support and

Borough of Moonachie v. Port of New York Authority

38 N.J. 414 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 5, 1962

There was no question about its establishment’s being within the agency’s statutory authorization. … On the facts present the borough and the county not only could not, but clearly never intended to bind themselves to treat the manufacturing plant as tax-immune.

Young ex rel. J.Y. v. United States

152 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2015

qualifies for a cap on damages under the NJCIA. … Applying these standards, the Court concludes that the Government does not qualify for absolute immunity under the NJCIA, but may qualify for the damages cap.

TP. OF HOLMDEL v. NJ Highway Auth.

388 N.J. Super. 36 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 5, 2006

Accordingly, the Amphitheater Facilities ceased to qualify for tax exemption commencing in tax year 1997. . . . . … asserted immunity. [ Twp. of Holmdel v.