Case law

Rogozinski v. Airstream by Angell

152 N.J. Super. 133 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 18, 1977

The court concluded that, under the circumstances before it, wherein allegations, if proven, "would most convincingly establish clearly, specifically and definitely that it was the intent of the parties to enter into long-term … privilege affords immunity only if there is no ill motive or malice in fact, and can be lost by abuse on the part of the defendant.

Manna v. State

129 N.J. 341 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 21, 1992

IV Both the trial court and the Appellate Division held that the State was immune from liability under the Act’s provision establishing immunity for injuries caused solely by inclement weather. … However, we did not require that the State demonstrate its conscious rejection of smoke detectors in order to qualify for the immunity. Ibid.

State in Interest of AL

271 N.J. Super. 192 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 1994

A state legislature is free to restrict or qualify that right, so long as it does not create an arbitrary or discriminatory classification scheme. Woodard v. … Clearly, N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-29 does not mention "derivative use" immunity.

Borough of Paramus v. County of Bergen

27 N.J. Tax 215 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 8, 2013

Operation of a county owned hospital is clearly a public purpose. … Reference to Lot 1, Qualifier X, will be abbreviated Qualifier X. Block 6401 Lot 1 has assigned to it a non-taxed assessment.

Doe v. Banos

966 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2013

Skahill, 298 Fed.Appx. 161, 165 (3d Cir.2008) (citations omitted) (explaining that (1) qualified immunity protects government officials from liability if their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery).

Owens v. Armstrong

171 F. Supp. 3d 316 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 22, 2016

To establish a violation of Title II, Plaintiff must allege: “(1) that he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities … Under the ADA, Plaintiff must first set forth facts indicating he is a qualified person with a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 .

State v. Deshler

25 N.J.L. 177 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1855

But it is qualified by the word taxable. … thereby qualified to vote.

Rudolph v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc.

153 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity), Wood v. … The question of whether the Defendants are entitled to assert qualified immunity is not presented and need not be addressed by this Court.

Baldwin v. Housing Authority of City of Camden, NJ

278 F. Supp. 2d 365 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, the individual defendants assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … If a court concludes that an officer’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity. 298 F.3d at 277 (internal quotations and citations

Petrocelli v. Sayreville Shade Tree Commission

297 N.J. Super. 544 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 21, 1997

Unlike the grant of a qualified good faith immunity in N.J.S.A. 26:11-12, which the Court found to be inconsistent with the TCA’s grant of absolute immunity to public entities for “ ‘the exercise of judgment or discretion … ,’ ” 147 N.J. at 306-08 , 687 A.2d at 721 , the absolute immunity of N.J.S.A 40:64-14 is not a qualified immunity.

Town of Morristown v. TP. OF HANOVER

168 N.J. Super. 292 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 16, 1979

The legislation as construed by the Supreme Court in Aviation Services and Shell Oil Co., supra, establishes an island of immunity from zoning regulations for property operated and used for the primary purpose of a municipal … The statutory immunity mandates the reverse process.

Wuethrich v. Delia

134 N.J. Super. 400 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 1975

the liability established by the act may be subject to one of the claimed express statutory immunities of the public entity ( N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b); 59:5-4; and 59:5-5). … This court construes N.J.S.A. 59:2-2 to hold the public entity clearly liable for acts or omissions of a low-level discretionary or ministerial nature.

Wright v. New Jersey/Department of Education

115 F. Supp. 3d 490 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 14, 2015

New York, 251 F.3d 84, 95 (2d Cir.2001) (ruling that plaintiff had not established state waiver of sovereign immunity for ADEA claims due to lack of showing that Congress had used “unmistakably clear language” to condition … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (in qualified immunity context, stating that “[u]ntil th[e] threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed,” because bare

Essex Properties Urban Renewal Associates, Inc. v. City of Newark

20 N.J. Tax 360 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 4, 2002

Salt and Light also established a policy of retaining residents who were unable to pay. … OCHC, 351 N.J.Super. 280 , 798 A.2d 131 (App.Div.2002), where in a charitable immunity case, the court held that OCHC was not deemed charitable for immunity purposes because the record demonstrated no attempt to obtain charitable

Brian Royster v. New Jersey State Police

439 N.J. Super. 554 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 2015

Only the sovereign's own consent could qualify the absolute character of that immunity" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). … Here, defendants are clearly an arm of the State under the Fitchik test.

Tallaksen v. Ross

167 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 1979

Defendant's 70-acre undeveloped tract qualifies for immunity under the act when used for the statutorily defined recreational purposes, despite its zoning classification as residential lands and its proximity to developed … Clearly, plaintiff's recreational activities on defendant's undeveloped land represented the fulfillment of the legislative objective and, consistent *5 with the act's promise of immunity with respect to such use, defendant's

Thomas v. East Orange Board of Education

998 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 2014

Superintendent Scott and Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Smith v. ALZA CORPORATION

400 N.J. Super. 529 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 2008

The motion judge summarily dismissed plaintiff's complaint finding that defendant qualified for "seller" immunity under N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-9. … As such, we conclude that defendant does not qualify as a "product seller" entitled to immunity from liability under N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-9.

Whitney v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light

240 N.J. Super. 420 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1990

The Act, in our view, would clearly go beyond these goals were it construed to grant a blanket *424 immunity to all property owners, particularly to those owning lands in densely populated urban or suburban areas, without … The Supreme Court made this statement in concluding that a reservoir, which probably would qualify for the immunity provided by the Act if located in an undeveloped area, does not enjoy that immunity if it is located in the

Duran v. Merline

923 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2013

Since the Court has already found a constitutional violation, it need only consider the second prong of the familiar two-step qualified immunity analysis: whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of … “A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”