Case law

Keyes Martin & Co. v. Director, Division of Purchase & Property, Department of Treasury

196 N.J. Super. 52 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 5, 1984

An Evaluation Committee found that appellant was the best qualified bidder with a score of 84.2 out of a possible 100 under established technical evaluation criteria, 8 points higher than *56 the next best qualified bidder … That which is clearly implied is as much a part of the law as that which is expressed.’ ” Ward v. Scott, supra, 11 N.J. at 123 , quoting from Brandon v.

Marrero v. Camden County Board of Social Services

164 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 4, 2001

tort immunity where they are “exercising a privilege of the principal”. 563 A.2d at 42-43 . … An employer's duty to afford an employee the protections of the FMLA begins as soon as "the employee provides the employer with enough information to put the employer on notice that FMLA-qualified leave is needed.”

WOLF v. WOLF

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

“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 … the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.”

Johnson v. Cyklop Strapping Corp.

220 N.J. Super. 250 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 6, 1987

Levine's potential liability as a link in the distributive chain was thus established. … The same is clearly so in respect of a common-law indemnity claim.

HESSEIN, M.D. v. UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 19, 2022

“[T]o earn the protections of absolute immunity, a defendant must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity ’clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint.’” Fogle, supra (citing Wilson v. … “Thus, while we tend to discuss prosecutorial immunity based on alleged acts, our ultimate analysis is whether a defendant has established absolute prosecutorial immunity from a given claim.”

Collingswood Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Am. Fed. Hosiery Workers

28 N.J. Super. 605 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 1953

A party may not be compelled to submit to arbitration questions which, on the face of the contract, are clearly beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, or as to matters clearly intended to be omitted therefrom. … Div. 1951), relied upon by the defendant, is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

SUMMERVILLE v. NEW JERSEY STATE TROOPERS JOHN DOES 1-10

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 31, 2019

(DE 132) He clarifies in his reply that he means to press these arguments primarily in the context of qualified immunity. (DE 136) Local Rule 7.1(i) governs motions for reconsideration. … As to the initial stop, qualified immunity cannot be granted, if only because serious jury issues remain as to what Officer Gregory observed before ordering the detention.

BRIGHT v. HOEBICH

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 2025

As the Complaint fails to contain any allegations sufficient to establish that either exception applies, judicial immunity bars all claims against the Chief Judge. See Kirkland v. DiLeo, 581 F. … App’x 531 (3d Cir. 2003) (finding housing inspectors are entitled to qualified immunity). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED.

City of Ventnor City v. Interdenominational Foreign Missionary Society of New Jersey, Inc.

13 N.J. Tax 445 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 1, 1993

Columbian Institute, 101 N.J.Super. 205, 209 , 243 A.2d 853 (Cty.Ct.1968) (a nonprofit corporation, not organized exclusively for charitable purposes, does not enjoy charitable immunity from tort liability under N.J.S.A 2A … In their briefs, however, both parties assumed that the corporation qualified under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, and they focused on the use of the properties.

Sokol v. Liebstein

9 N.J. 93 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 10, 1952

Plaintiff argues that the trial court and the jury had the opportunity to pass on credibility and did so, the trial court reducing the verdict merely because the proofs did not establish the quantum of commissions claimed … “Due regard” is qualified and explained by the balance of the language of the rule: it must clearly and convincingly appear that the verdict was the result of mistake, partiality, prejudice or passion.

Soto v. Scaringelli

384 N.J. Super. 431 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 2006

AICRA modified the categories of injury qualifying for recompense under the verbal threshold. … Clearly there can be scars that are so minimal and so concealed from view that no reasonable person could find them significant. We do not find that to be the case here.

MCLEOD v. FITZPATRICK MCGOUGH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 24, 2022

Decisions on those matters clearly fall within a judicial capacity. … Second, as noted above, “New Jersey courts ‘have long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege that confers immunity upon a public official for defamation uttered in relation to matters committed by law to [his

Scott v. Mayflower Home Imp. Corp.

363 N.J. Super. 145 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 10, 2001

The Holder in due course doctrine will not immunize the financial institutions from the claims of the class members. See also Associates Home Equity Services, Inc. v. … If a consumer in a CFA case establishes the "core issue of liability," then the consumer will be entitled to a presumption of "reliance and/or causation." Id. at 51 , 752 A. 2d at 818 .

Kerr v. Able Sanitary and Environmental Services, Inc.

295 N.J. Super. 147 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 1996

The record also reflects, however, that Cowell submitted a subsequent certification in which she qualified her statement concerning the timeframe in which she spoke with Haley: I thought I had spoken to Mr. … ("Under R. 4:10-3, the burden is clearly on the person to be deposed to show that a protective order is necessary ....").

In Re D'Agostino

6 N.J. Super. 549 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 27, 1949

It clearly fails to establish that the will was executed in duplicate and that testator retained an executed duplicate when he left the original with the bank. … Neither witness was qualified as an expert, nor did either of them have any acquaintance with the testamentary witnesses, Raymond R. Read and Carolyn A. Wright, or their signatures.

Moore v. Local Union No. 483

66 N.J. 527 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 14, 1975

In that case the Court held that a county medical society could not arbitrarily exclude a duly licensed and qualified physician from membership. … Journeymen Stonecutters’ Association, supra, is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

Mance v. Quest Diagnostics Inc. Voluntary Separation Agreement Plan

237 F. Supp. 3d 217 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 2017

ERISA applies to “any employee benefit plan if it is established or maintained ... by any employer engaged in commerce.” 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (a). Severance plans may qualify as ERISA plans. See Alston v. Atl. Elec. … This further demonstrates the difficulty of objectively ascertaining the specific benefits due to qualifying employees.

Carlisle v. Cooper

21 N.J. Eq. 576 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1870

As a condition to the exercise of that power, it is essential that, the right shall be clearly established, or that it should previously have been determined by the action of the ordinary tribunals for the adjudication of … The rule is clearly stated by Chancellor Green in the líolsman case, thus: “ Whore an action is brought for overflowing the plaintiff’s lands by backwater from the defendant’s mill dam, it establishes no title by adverse

Williams v. EFG Tech/Rutgers (In Re Williams)

296 B.R. 128 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 25, 2003

Williams no longer qualified for disability benefits. On July 2, 2001, upon motion of Ms. … Williams has the burden of establishing each element of this test by a preponderance of the evidence. See, Faish, at 306; see also, Grogan v.

Deubel v. Kervick

33 N.J. 568 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 20, 1960

The essential objects of the Order as stated in the act of incorporation are “the education of youth and the establishment of churches and conducting of service therein.” … The seminary, situate in Morristown, is devoted to theological instruction for men who have qualified for study for the priesthood.