Case law

Bogda v. Chevrolet-Bloomfield Div., GM Corp.

8 N.J. Super. 172 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1950

To clearly understand the issue, it is necessary to elaborate somewhat on the facts. … In construing a statute, it is clearly established that the sense of a law is gathered from its object, the nature of the subject matter and the whole of the context in the acts pari materia; that the parts of a statute are

KEARNY GENERATING SYS., PUB. SERV. DIV. v. Roper

184 N.J. Super. 253 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1982

It is undisputed that plaintiff has established steps (i), (ii) and (iii). The controversy revolves around step (iv) in determining whether plaintiff established a prima facie case. … For instance, if an employer is presented with a choice between two qualified applicants, selection of the least qualified because of a greater experience or personal attributes which enhance the applicant's value to the

SEVERINO v. NEW JERSEY DEPT OF HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2024

to identify a clearly established right that has been violated. … plaintiff has not adequately identified the violation of a clearly established right.

Bender v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.

901 F. Supp. 863 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 27, 1994

The governing law alleged to have been ignored by the arbitrators must be well defined, explicit, and clearly applicable. … The information *868 provided to the court establishes that, at all relevant times, Mr. Boyd was qualified to adjudicate plaintiff’s claims. The affidavit of John J.

Barney's Furniture Warehouse of Newark, Inc. v. City of Newark

62 N.J. 456 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 9, 1973

has established” it must be changed to accommodate such demands at peril of liability. … A. 59:2-3; Report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Sovereign Immunity (1972), pp. 212-13.

James R. Jarrell v. Richard A. Kaul, M.D. (072363)

223 N.J. 294 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 29, 2015

For example, N.J.S.A 45:9-19.11 immunizes members of the BME from liability for actions taken in the course of their administrative obligations, and N.J.S.A. 45:9-22.3(b) immunizes a physician from liability for failing to … The Court stated: State regulations now clearly require practicing physicians maintaining a professional office ... to obtain a minimum amount of medical malpractice insurance as a condition for licensure.

Deo v. Morello

388 N.J. Super. 226 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2006

The Profits Sharing Plan also clearly provides that spousal consent is the written consent of a participant’s spouse. … In addition, ERISA clearly provides that an election of a waiver of the qualified joint and survivor annuity form of benefit or the qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity form of benefit or both under an ERISA governed

In re Estate of Rodio

164 N.J. Super. 555 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1978

It is well established that a deed conveying real property to a legally married husband and wife will create a tenancy by the entirety unless the deed contains qualifying words by which a different tenancy is established. … It is contended that this statute requires language to appear in the granting and habendum clauses of a deed clearly demonstrating an intent to establish a joint tenancy.

Garrison v. Township of Middletown

154 N.J. 282 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 7, 1998

Apparently recognizing the incongruity of an analysis that makes the dangerousness of property depend not on its general condition but rather on a specific plaintiffs use, the Court qualifies its holding by observing that … The Court has found that the legislative policy expressed in the Act was “to establish immunity as the general rule.” Id. at 373 , 593 A.2d 335 ; see also Manna v.

C. v. C.

54 N.J. 223 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 1969

In the past, although admittedly in another context (common law immunity), we have not hesitated to initiate change in a well established doctrine in an attempt to bring the law into focus with modern society. … We qualify this holding only because it is not possible to foresee all situations which might arise.

ESTATE OF SAULO DEL ROSARIO v. PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 23, 2020

clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … See Giles, 571 F.3d at 326 (finding issues of fact may preclude ruling on qualified immunity question at summary judgment).

W.S. VS. DEREK HILDRETH (L-0043-20, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 2021

However, the judge concluded the motion record did "not establish a basis for tolling the accrual of the cause of action beyond plaintiff's eighteenth birthday," "let alone until April 2016, or thereafter." … The Legislature clearly intended that plaintiff's 2020 complaint was in the universe of lawsuits to which Chapter 120 would apply.

Barrett v. Borough of Frenchtown

6 N.J. Tax 558 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 14, 1984

The raising of bees and production of honey are clearly considered an agricultural use because the Legislature provided specifically that “[ljand shall be deemed to be in agricultural use when devoted to the production for … Applying well-established principles as set forth in the above cases, I am constrained to find from the evidence in this case that as of 1978 Lot 84 was not “actively devoted to agricultural use” within the intendment of

REDDICK v. HICKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 14, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants Ellis, Fitzpatrick, and Clark argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right at the time … “[T]he judicially created doctrine of qualified immunity” shields governmental officials from suit and from liability if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Sabia v. Sabia

16 N.J. Super. 273 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 1951

There was no dispute as to the marriage and qualifying residence of the parties. … refusal to have sexual intercourse with her husband for the statutory period of two years was clearly established by the surrounding facts and circumstances.

Ford v. Ford Motor Co.

311 F. Supp. 3d 667 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 27, 2017

An area of one component caught Zazula's attention, as solidification of the plastic did not allow him to see the area clearly. … He *679 stated that, "[w]hen you have an arc that results in a bead, that clearly indicates the presence of [an] abnormal ... electrical event.

State v. Galiano

349 N.J. Super. 157 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 2002

The first paragraph of N.J.S.A. 20:48-7.1 clearly speaks only to prior convictions — i.e., convictions preexisting sentencing for the offense that constitutes the third strike. … Simultaneous convictions for separate offenses would not qualify for enhanced punishment.

Fitzgerald v. Wright

155 N.J. Super. 494 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1978

This appeal concerns the propriety of an involuntary dismissal granted by the trial judge because of the failure of plaintiff to present evidence of the quantum of medical expenses which would qualify him to recover in tort … Super. 140, 145-149 (Law Div. 1976). [1] We are mindful of the fact that the statutory provision is couched in terms of an "exemption" from tort liability — an immunity granted to a defendant under the designated factual

Vedutis v. Tesi

135 N.J. Super. 337 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 1975

While this court is mindful of the fact that the Tort Claims Act represents an abrogation of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity and, therefore, ought to be strictly construed, St ate v. … A. 2A:14-2.1 clearly bridges that gap, and reading the two statutes in pari materia serves to harmonize the law relating to the same subject matter.

ROSARIO v. MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

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

However, qualified immunity is only proper when “(1) the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right, or (2) the right violated was not clearly established in light of the specific context … However, when facts in a complaint are not clear with respect to meeting either prerequisite for qualified immunity, it cannot be grounds to grant a motion to dismiss.