Case law

Pomykacz v. Borough of West Wildwood

438 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 20, 2006

Officer Ferentz and Mayor Fox are entitled to qualified immunity from the § 1983 claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … A reasonable official would know that these actions violated Pomykacz’s clearly established constitutional rights. See Cuvo v.

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

Delbridge v. Off. of Pub. Def.

238 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1989

Public defenders enjoy only qualified immunity. Polk Cty. v. Dodson, supra, 454 U.S. at 325 , 102 S.Ct. at 453 , 70 L.Ed.2d 521 . … This court finds that there is qualified immunity except for conspiracy or intentional misconduct or legal malpractice.

Fees v. Trow

105 N.J. 330 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 9, 1987

. *340 III Having established that a qualified privilege is the appropriate measure of protection in this case, we turn next to the question of what constitutes an abuse of that privilege. … Because a qualified privilege is favored with a presumption that there was no express malice, plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that the statements complained of were made “from an indirect or improper motive,

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.

HARTFELDER v. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 15, 2019

They argue that (1) their use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances; and (2) even if it were not, they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established … “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 constitutional

Rk Ex Rel. Skb v. Yale Schools, Inc.

621 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2008

Qualified Immunity The Court first reviews the standard under which Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is analyzed. … In the second step of the analysis, the Court addresses “whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, ‘whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in

Endress v. Brookdale Community College

144 N.J. Super. 109 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 27, 1976

This is so because of their right to interpose a qualified immunity from damages. … The record establishes that the trustees were clearly aware of the editorial and the resulting furor.

Danny Caicedo v. Fabian Caicedo

439 N.J. Super. 615 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 2015

"The public entity bears the burden of proof for establishing immunity. … immunize."

SALKIN v. LABROSSE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Sauers v. … can defeat a qualified immunity defense.”).

Lindroth v. Christ Hospital

21 N.J. 588 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 4, 1956

such immunity when the injured persons are strangers thereto. … The Dean lists 17 jurisdictions in addition to the District of Columbia where the immunity was formerly recognized and has now been repudiated. He concludes, “The immunity of charities is clearly in full retreat.”

George v. Board of Education

34 F. Supp. 3d 442 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2014

“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 person … Second, was that right “clearly established”? Id. Qualified immunity applies to O.G.’s federal and state constitutional claims. See Sussino v.

Canico v. Hurtado

144 N.J. 361 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1996

To further the legislative goal of encouraging pursuits, however, both Tice and Fielder relied on section 2(b)’s grant of absolute immunity, rather than section 3-3’s qualified immunity. … Unlike the absolute immunity of section 2(b), section 3-3 requires that to enjoy qualified immunity public employees must act in “good faith.”

Scholz v. Scholz

177 N.J. Super. 647 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 2, 1980

Tevis is clearly applicable to the allegation of assault and battery alleged and the court will grant plaintiff's motion. … Although Tevis recognized the abrogation of the doctrine of interspousal immunity, it made mention of exceptions to which the immunity may still apply.

Delacruz v. Borough of Hillsdale

365 N.J. Super. 127 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 2004

It is now firmly established that in order to succeed in a § 1983 claim, plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that defendants, while acting under color of state law, deprived him of a clearly established constitutional … Successful assertion of the defense of qualified immunity requires defendants to establish that a reasonably competent police officer receiving the same information would have concluded that probable cause existed.

Paternoster v. NJ Transp. Dept.

190 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 1983

Super. 67, 73 (App.Div. 1978), certif. den. 77 N.J. 480 (1978), that the Tort Claims Act had not abolished "the immunity established in the area of discretionary activities typified by Miehl v. … Subsection d is clearly brought into play and there is no "broad blanket immunity" for the public entities' snow removal activities. Brown v. Brown, supra, 86 N.J. at 578 .

Morey v. Palmer

232 N.J. Super. 144 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 1989

Properly applied, N.J.S.A. 59:2-2 qualifies the general immunity of N.J.S.A. 59:2-1 by focusing on the type of conduct enjoying the immunity. … "We have held that the plain meaning of N.J.S.A. 59:2-1 firmly establishes that `immunity is the dominant consideration of the Act.' (Citations omitted).

Simmermon v. Gabbianelli

865 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2012

Defendants concede that the due process rights in question are clearly established, and rest their argument for qualified immunity on the assertion that while the rights are clear, it was not clear to Defendants that their … Since Defendants concede this to be clearly established, there is no basis for qualified immunity.

Davis v. Township of Paulsboro

421 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 2006

Many cases have stated that an individual government official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right alleged to have been violated was "not clearly established.” See, e.g., McKee v. … Thus, the language "clearly established right," when applied in this type of case, risks the undesirable and incongruous result that qualified immunity will be denied to most, if not all, law enforcement officers because

James B. Hurwitz, M.D. v. Ahs Hospital Corp.

438 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 2014

Like the federal law, the New Jersey statute provides broad immunity for damages to qualified persons for actions taken as part of a hospital's peer review process. … As Judge Grispin correctly found, defendants are clearly within the presumptive scope of the federal immunity under the HCQIA.