Case law

Getch v. Rosenbach

700 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 1988

In so doing, Getch misconstrues the meaning of “clearly established rights.” … Conversely, an official’s subjective good faith no longer gives rise to a defense of qualified immunity if the court finds his conduct to be objectively unreasonable in that it violated clearly established law. Davis v.

Doe v. Borough of Barrington

729 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 1990

Defendant Smith did not assert a qualified immunity defense. … Perhaps this contention is defendant’s inartful attempt to assert qualified immunity. The defendant, however, has the burden to prove the defense of qualified immunity. Gomez v.

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.

Dlugosz v. Fred S. James & Co.

212 N.J. Super. 175 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 1986

Historically, public entities within the State of New Jersey enjoyed complete sovereign immunity in tort actions. Ibid. That long established immunity was abrogated by the Supreme Court in Willis v. … They further noted that the qualified immunity of a public body under federal law is concordant with the New Jersey legislative policy as expressed in N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(a) and -3(b) or our Tort Claims Act. Id. at 168.

Hilton Acres v. Klein

64 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 1960

To this qualified extent the statutory policy is for a period of enforced immobility of the local regulatory power relative to the particular subdivision development. … The record does not clearly indicate whether such tests were ever made or submitted or what they showed.

Reynolds v. Borough of Avalon

799 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 5, 1992

N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 confers qualified or “good faith” immunity on public officials for their discretionary acts. … Thus, the question becomes whether each defendant would have reasonably believed that her/his actions were lawful in light of reasonably believed that her/his actions were lawful in light of clearly established law.

Jobes v. Evangelista

369 N.J. Super. 384 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 28, 2004

immunity issue. … Simply put, good faith as a condition of the qualified immunity afforded by N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 and actual malice in the New York Times sense are mutually exclusive.

Liberty and Prosperity 1776, Inc. v. Corzine

720 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 2010

Having found such an allegation of a deprivation, the Court must address “whether the right that was [allegedly] violated was clearly established, or, in other words, whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that … Apart from the question of the scope of qualified immunity in any given case, a separate question is whether a given official is entitled to qualified immunity at all.

Laracuente v. Laracuente

252 N.J. Super. 384 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1991

Federal authority clearly and unequivocally supports Macy's contention. In Todd v. Associated Credit Bureau Services, Inc., 451 F. … We need not pass on whether Macy's, as a provider of information has a qualified or conditional privilege insofar as plaintiff has not overcome the burden of establishing malice.

Williams v. Hayman

657 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 2008

While Defendants argue that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, they have not raised the defense that Title II constitutes an invalid attempt to abrogate state sovereign immunity to the extent that … The Individual Defendants also argue that even if such claims were cognizable under Title II of the ADA, they would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services

148 F. Supp. 2d 462 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2001

“The doctrine of qualified immunity ‘hold[s] that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … However, far from being clearly established, the plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claim is somewhat novel.

Peltack v. Borough of Manville

547 F. Supp. 770 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 23, 1982

I do not reach this novel question because I have determined that under the undisputed facts of this case, the defendants are entitled to a qualified good faith immunity. Harlow v. … Therefore the test on summary judgment which the court should apply is: On summary judgment, the judge appro- ■ priately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at

Eastern Seaboard, Etc. v. Nj Prop.-Liab. Ins. Guaranty Ass'n

175 N.J. Super. 589 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 9, 1980

Defendant offers as "a general rule of statutory construction" that statutes which grant privileges, powers, rights or immunities to "residents" will be limited to domestic corporations, absent qualifying words which plainly … is clearly expressed in the terms of the statute.

Thomas v. ATTY. GEN. OF NEW JERSEY

692 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … right” and “the right was clearly established” at the time of the objectionable conduct.

State v. Carminati

170 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 26, 1979

Clearly, trial of the perjury charges necessitated disclosure of Badelamenti's immune grand jury testimony because it was portions of that testimony which were alleged to have been false. … Clearly, the joint trial held in this case, necessitating the disclosure of testimony coerced under a promise of immunity, directly contrary to the commitment of immunity made, raises problems of constitutional magnitude

Roberts v. TBAA

371 N.J. Super. 189 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 2004

That does not automatically qualify it to invoke the defense of charitable immunity, however. … That is why we require plaintiff to establish that she falls within the DeVries volunteer category.

Brown v. St. Venantius School

111 N.J. 325 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 8, 1988

The Act on its face does not immunize defendants from liability in this case, however, because the Act immunizes qualifying charitable organizations from tort liability only to one who is “a beneficiary, to whatever degree … Clearly, the Legislature could have immunized charitable organizations from liability to strangers or nonbeneficiaries had it so chosen. Instead, the Legislature adopted a statute that did just the opposite: N.J.

Binkewitz v. Allstate Ins. Co.

222 N.J. Super. 501 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 1988

In balancing those significant interests, absolute immunity best fits some settings and qualified immunity is appropriate to others. See Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., 104 N.J. 125, 136 (1986). … Just as in a defamation action, the qualified privilege is a defense which must be raised by defendant. The cause of action is not, however, established solely by defeating the defense of privilege.

CN Ex Rel. JN v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ.

319 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 3, 2004

were violating any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages in their individual capacity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Cinaglia v. Levin

258 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 2003

An individual is immune if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. at 399 . … Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for suits brought under § 1983. IV.