Case law

Gewertz v. Jackman

467 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 1979

There is clearly jurisdiction over the subject matter, since the cause of action “arises under” the federal constitution, Powell v. … VI of the United States Constitution, clearly mandates this conclusion. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, supra at 582; Bond v.

Bergen Commercial Bank v. Sisler

157 N.J. 188 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 24, 1999

A prima facie cause of action under the LAD is established when [t]he plaintiff [ ] demonstrate^] by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she (1) belongs to a protected class, (2) applied and was qualified for a position … An employee can demonstrate “background circumstances” sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination by establishing either that the plaintiff was better qualified for the position than the minority candidate selected

Greenberg v. Camden County Vocational & Technical Schools

310 N.J. Super. 189 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 6, 1998

To establish a prima facie case under LAD, a plaintiff must show: (1) that she is a member of a class protected by the anti-discrimination law; (2) that she was qualified for the position or rank sought; (3) that she was … The argument on behalf of the defendant is that she was considered not qualified.

New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. State

184 N.J. Super. 348 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 4, 1982

In July 1978 their names appeared on a list of qualified persons willing to accept foster children on an emergency basis. … Finally, if the “relative nature of the work” test is utilized, then clearly what the Bells did was part of the regular “business” of the State. Id. at 604.

In Re Napp Technologies, Inc. Litigation

338 N.J. Super. 176 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 2000

However, the privilege is qualified, not absolute. … Since H & R has not established a community "with the goals and concerns that underlie the journalist's privilege," it may not successfully invoke it. *283 IV H & R is not entitled to assert the qualified First Amendment

Tripo v. Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center

845 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 13, 2012

These physicians also wear nametags that clearly identify their association with the State of New Jersey — UMDNJ. … The purpose of the Act is to “reestablish the immunity of public entities while coherently ameliorating the harsh results of the [sovereign immunity] doctrine.” Beauchamp v.

GOYDOS v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY

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

Libutti from this claim pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, specifically because Plaintiffs’ SAC failed to allege that a constitutional right was clearly established. (/d. 15-16.) … “Qualified immunity shields officials ‘from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Attorney-General

46 N.J. Eq. 270 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1889

The proviso, I think, is clearly an ambiguous sentence. … These qualifying words relate to and qualify some antecedent substantive.

State v. Mingo

77 N.J. 576 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 1978

We believe that right to be clearly subverted if an expert report obtained for defense purposes by defendant’s counsel is to be made discoverable to the State and utilizable by it, directly or indirectly, at trial, unless … As indicated above, the immunity from discovery by the State of defense experts reports is subject to waiver in the event the defense intends to use the substance of those reports at the trial.

TRUSSELL v. MONMOUTH COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2025

constitutional right is clearly established.” … Accordingly, the Court considers, under the second prong of the qualified immunity doctrine, “whether the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.” Karkalas,845 F.

Federal Trust Co. v. Conklin

87 N.J. Eq. 185 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 5, 1916

. ■ The bill in this cause is filed to establish and enforce an equitable set-off, and, incidentally, to restrain defendant from prosecuting an action on an attachment in the supreme court of the State of New York. … Complainant further contends that it has a banker’s lien on Conti’s deposit, and that this action should be regarded as one to establish and foreclose this lien.

Superior Life, Health & Accident Insurance v. Board of Review of Unemployment Compensation Commission

127 N.J.L. 537 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 21, 1942

We think this is so despite the fact that he was obliged to obtain a license from the state to qualify him to sell insurance. … That fact alone does not establish his status as one engaged in an independently established business, &c., any more than one employed as a driver of an automobile with & license to drive would be.

LASCHE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2019

Qualified Immunity Government officials enjoy qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether a state actor is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

LOVE v. JOHN DOES 1-9

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2021

rights and (2) that the constitutional right violated was clearly established. … On this motion, however, Defendants’ briefing on qualified immunity consists of brief boilerplate legal standard and a citation to one case which found it was not clearly established that a prisoner was “entitled to place

DnC America Banking Corp. v. Topcroft, Inc. (In re Topcroft, Inc.)

122 B.R. 235 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 1990

The debtor concedes DnC qualifies as a bank under the applicable New York law defining banks, but asserts it must also qualify under New Jersey law in order to take advantage of the exemption DnC asserts applies to this matter … Since DnC does not, it cannot qualify under the literal requirements of the statute.

Township of Long Beach v. City of New York

445 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 24, 1978

The court did “not address these difficult issues, however, because there is a legal bar which clearly precludes the maintenance of this suit under the [plaintiff’s] theory: sovereign immunity.” Id. at 123 . … I reject this argument and find that the action is not barred by sovereign immunity since “it is clear from the language of [the FWPCA] and its legislative history that Congress intended to waive sovereign immunity as to

ROSE BENGEL VS. HOLIDAY CITY AT BERKELEY FIRST AID SQUAD, INC. (L-0192-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 2020

This test recognizes that even a person who acted negligently is entitled to a qualified immunity, if he acted in an objectively reasonable manner. [Ibid. … On appeal, plaintiffs appear to have abandoned their prior claim that defendants were not responding to a medical emergency to qualify for immunity.

ROBERT BRYANT VS. CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (L-3505-15, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 21, 2020

Therefore, an officer accused of false arrest can assert qualified immunity to defend himself against an N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 claim if his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … [B]eing wrong is not enough to destroy qualified immunity.

State v. Prudden

212 N.J. Super. 608 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 1986

Lovejoy was not qualified as an expert. She *617 next claims that the State failed to establish the reliability of the techniques employed. We are entirely satisfied that Dr. … The State's evidence clearly established that the techniques employed by the witness were sufficiently reliable to permit an expert opinion excluding Downey on the basis of the prints taken at the scene as compared with the

Phibro Animal Health Corporation v. National Union

446 N.J. Super. 419 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 2016

But that possibility does not establish that there was no property damage. The point is refuted by an affidavit10 from Dr. … Only third-party property qualifies as "impaired property" under that definition.