Case law

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Christie

926 F. Supp. 2d 551 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2013

Additionally, New Jersey was the only state qualified to establish sports gambling within the one-year period outlined in § 3704(a)(3). New Jersey chose not to exercise that opportunity. … It is clearly established that the State of New Jersey, as a governmental entity, is not a “person” and therefore is not afforded the protections of the Due Process Clause.

Nusbaum v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.

86 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 8, 1965

That qualified privilege is clearly applicable here. Coleman v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 29 N.J. 357, 379 (1959); Swede v. Passaic Daily News, 30 N.J. 320, 333 (1959). … If her public activity on behalf of the teachers extended to 1957 this record does not clearly so demonstrate, for summary judgment purposes. At best, a jury issue in that regard would apparently be projected.

Port of New York Authority v. Hackensack Water Co.

41 N.J. 90 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 6, 1963

The distinction has proved useful to restrain the ancient concept of municipal tort immunity, not because of any logic in the distinction, but rather because sound policy dictated that governmental immunity should not envelop … This stimulated state legislation to relieve private utilities of the common law rule, at least as to projects qualifying for *108 federal aid.

Newark Branch, National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Township of West Orange

786 F. Supp. 408 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 1992

Clearly, to the extent there has been a “lengthy dispute” West Orange did nothing to hasten the resolution of the dispute. … Clearly, West Orange has a significant interest in wanting its police and fire fighters to be able to respond quickly to an emergency situation.

Malouf v. Turner

814 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 2011

as an officer of the PHS pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 233 (a); and all four individual defendants seek summary judgment due to qualified immunity. … [Rule 56] mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’

NEW JERSEY CHINESE COMMUNITY CENTER VS. VINCENT DOMINACH (L-0014-17, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 2019

Judge Miller also considered whether if defendant was not entitled to absolute immunity, under the circumstances, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 ("[a] public employee is not liable … immunity.

CORCORAN v. CAUWELS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 5, 2023

The burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity rests with the movant asserting the defense. Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273, 288 (3d Cir. 2014). … “The qualified immunity inquiry contains two prongs: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Frank Lovato v. Clifton Police Department

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2025

As a result, Sergeant Hayes was "entitled to absolute immunity under [N.J.S.A.] 59:5-2(b) since plaintiff[s] provided no evidence to establish [he] engaged in willful misconduct." … To pierce [N.J.S.A. 59:]3-3's qualified immunity, a plaintiff must prove more than ordinary negligence.

State v. Jackson

278 N.J. Super. 69 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 15, 1994

Odom, supra , which disables a fact witness, if otherwise qualified, to testify as an expert. … Defendant's remaining contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). The admission of evidence of prior convictions is a matter of judicial discretion. See State v.

Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.

984 F. Supp. 239 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 6, 1997

Claim 1 clearly denotes “swine infertility and respiratory syndrome virus, ATCC-VR2332” as the virus upon which it focuses its attention. … While loss of goodwill may qualify as irreparable harm, (see Bio-Technology General Corp. v.

KENNEDY v. THE NEW JERSEY COURT SYSTEM

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2024

The caselaw clearly establishes that “a claimant will be ‘forever barred’ from recovery against a public employee or entity if she fails ‘to file the claim with the public entity within 90 days of accrual.’” … Aug, 2, 2024), First, the Court must address whether Plaintiff has established that she is a qualified individual with a disability.

Abbott v. Burke

100 N.J. 269 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 23, 1985

Establishment of educational goals at both the State and local levels; b. Encouragement of public involvement in the establishment of educational goals; c. … These and other “output” measures of educational success clearly bear on plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.

DD v. New Jersey Div. of Developmental Disabilities

351 N.J. Super. 308 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 31, 2002

s cortical dendritic synapses were destroyed, she was not qualified to testify as a neurologist or to render strictly neurological opinions. … We, therefore, do not reach the merits of the second contention, i.e., that the uncontroverted evidence clearly establishes his eligibility for the Division's services. A step-by-step analysis is required.

De Rosa v. Director, Division of Taxation

28 N.J. Tax 256 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 22, 2015

De Rosa had reasonable cause for under-reporting his New Jersey inheritance tax liability for the purpose of qualifying for the Tax Amnesty Program. Whether a plaintiff establishes reasonable cause “turns on the facts.” … That is clearly not the situation presented to the court in this matter.

JOHN E. SUSKO VS. BOROUGH OF BELMAR (L-1427-15, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 2019

[P]lacement of a comma after "laws of this State" and before the word "or" divides the clause into two separate, independent phrases that do not act to modify nor qualify one another. … Clearly, defendants' contrary interpretation renders the terms "deprive" and "interfere" indistinguishable, yet they are clearly different in meaning.

State v. Marsh

290 N.J. Super. 663 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 30, 1996

On the municipal court level, plea agreements are permitted, subject to Guidelines established by the Supreme Court. R. 7:4-8(a). … The promise clearly violated Guideline 4, and undermined its purpose of preserving public confidence that a meritorious DWI offense will not be bargained away.

Junghi Kim v. Loyola Jesuit Center, Loyola House of Retreats

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 16, 2024

The court considered defendant's organizational documents and found defendant qualified for immunity under the Act because it was "a nonprofit, religious organization" as defined by the Act, and plaintiff was a beneficiary … that the Legislature clearly made available to the [defendant].").

Morgan v. Susino Construction Co.

130 N.J.L. 418 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 17, 1943

The testimony concerning these declarations was clearly hearsay. The declarations cannot be justified as admissions against interest because Jordan is not a party to this case. … By his declaration of paternity he establishes himself as related by blood to the child, but that relationship is not established as fact unless and until the testimony offered is actually received in evidence.

Schlichtman v. NJ Highway Auth.

243 N.J. Super. 464 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1990

Concededly, justice is not qualified by the monetary importance or insignificance of the controversial issue. That quote is from Series Publishers, Inc. v. Greene, 9 N.J. … Hanover Township, 58 N.J. 410, 414 , 278 A. 2d 200 (1971) (relating to interspousal immunity in a tort action).

Shaw v. Riverdell Hospital

150 N.J. Super. 585 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 1977

I It is a well established and highly cherished principle of Anglo-Saxon law that a citizen has a right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination. Malloy v. … Clearly, then, the motion to stay the trial of the Biggs case and the motion to stay discovery in the Shaw case were prematurely filed.