Case law

ONUEKWUSI v. GRAHAM

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 22, 2021

Qualified immunity “shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Because qualified immunity protects government agents from suit, it “should be resolved as early as possible.” Id. The inquiry into qualified immunity, however, is fact intensive.

Bankston v. Housing Authority

342 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 2001

The plain language of the Act clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that it applies only to a contractor’s employees and not, as here, to a direct employee of a public agency. … The fact that she eventually qualified for such a position and now earns union wages does not lend any support for her claim of entitlement beforehand.

Jamouneau v. Division of Tax Appeals

2 N.J. 325 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 6, 1949

The burden of proof is upon him who asserts a tax exemption to establish the asserted right. Trenton v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 127 N. J. L. 105 (Sup. Ct. 1941); affirmed, sub nom. Trenton v. Rider College, 128 N. … We are clearly of the opinion in the instant case that the buildings are not publicly owned property in the sense that they should be given exemption from taxation. The land presents a more difficult problem.

Morris v. Siemens Components, Inc.

928 F. Supp. 486 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 1996

that she is a ‘qualified individual with a disability1 accorded protection under the ADA. … statement made by an employee of Zurich, MSC’s workers’ compensation carrier, does not constitute an employment contract primarily because the statement was not a statement made by Plaintiffs employer, and therefore is clearly

Beam v. Kent

3 N.J. 210 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 5, 1949

The defendant then moved to strike out all of that testimony, including matters clearly not hearsay. … “The rule is established that counsel cannot take the chance of testimony making in his favor, and if it happens to be adverse, then interpose his objection.

Schaeuble v. Reno

87 F. Supp. 2d 383 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 2000

Sovereign immunity does not apply, however, to suits seeking solely declaratory and injunctive relief. … Therefore, Plaintiffs claims against the United States are not barfed by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. B.

OWEN R. MCFARLANE, M.D. VS. SOUTHERN JERSEY FAMILY MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. (L-2893-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 30, 2021

The Trial Court Erred in Applying the Immunity Statute Because Dr. McFarlane Had Rebutted the Presumption of Immunity by Establishing that the Investigation and Hearing Were Not Fair. i. … New Jersey also has an immunity statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.10, which provides broad immunity from damages to qualified persons for actions taken as part of a hospital's peer review process.

State v. JQ

130 N.J. 554 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 6, 1993

As courts and counsel proceed further from that clearly admissible end of the spectrum, they must focus on the research basis for the proposition that the expert witness seeks to establish. … If qualified, the witness should then establish at a minimum that the methodology used to form his or her opinion is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community to establish the proposition to be stated by

Rutgers Chapter of Delta Upsilon Fraternity v. City of New Brunswick

129 N.J.L. 238 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 1942

This qualifying clause is a proviso or exception definitive of the scope of the exemption granted by the section, and the provisions are therefore inseparable. … It is the established rule that if a proviso in a statute be directly contrary to the purview, the proviso is good, and not the purview, since the former gives expression to the later intention of the legislature.

Woods-Pirozzi v. Nabisco Foods

290 N.J. Super. 252 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 16, 1996

Ibid. *275 Pirozzi clearly engaged in protected activity known to Nabisco by filing NJDCR and EEOC charges. … As Nabisco points out, Montalto explained to Pirozzi when Matwick vacated his position in May 1990 that she was not qualified for the safety position and Pirozzi admitted that Cahill, but not she, was qualified for the Safety

SANCHEZ v. SCOTT

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

Assuming, without finding, that Congress validly abrogated sovereign immunity for Plaintiff’s Title II ADA and RA claims,2 Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to establish that he has a disability. … Plaintiff has not alleged facts to establish these elements of a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim. 10.

In Re Application of Plainfield-Union Water Co.

11 N.J. 382 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 2, 1953

Self-crimination is rejected as a ground for refusing to testify, but the witness is accorded immunity from prosecution or punishment or the imposition of a penalty or forfeiture in regard to the subject matter of his testimony … The orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be “clearly disclosed. and adequately sustained.” Securities and Exchange Commission v.

Mayer v. Gottheiner

382 F. Supp. 2d 635 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 10, 2005

Long Beach Police Dept., 105 Fed.Appx. 549, 550 (5th Cir.2004) (holding that an officer, who chased and tackled a 100 pound teenage girl being arrested for truancy, was not entitled to qualified immunity because his actions … Because the Court ruled on the merits of plaintiff’s federal constitutional claims, it did not address the applicability of qualified immunity.

State v. Davis

229 N.J. Super. 66 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 28, 1988

every person is qualified to be a witness. … The judge also qualified M.S. as competent to testify.

Mayor of Rahway v. Crowell

40 N.J.L. 207 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1878

The rule clearly is, that, in such cases, the obligation by intendment will be confined to the official term about to commence, or current at the time such bond comes into existence. … , until the corporation can elect another and cause him to be qualified.

McCartin v. Surviving Executors of McCartin

45 N.J. Eq. 265 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1889

To this extent the act of 1880 modified the earlier law, the-alteration being to partially qualify each party without reference-to the action of the other. … In the absence of a clearly expressed intention to the contrary, it extends to those cases only which are within the purview of the statute.”

State v. Moore

122 N.J. 420 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 23, 1991

In later cross-examination the prosecutor questioned whether defendant’s consciousness of guilt, as shown by his concealment of the evidence, clearly established that he had consciously killed: Q. … We find no need to present these photographs as proofs to establish that factor, but they are clearly relevant to the c(4)(c) factor. See infra at 474-478, 585 A.2d 891 -894.

Sellers v. Philip's Barber Shop

46 N.J. 340 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 1966

Instead of doing so, he says, the Legislature listed the business establishments which were to be considered as within the category. … If his competence does not extend that far, he lacks the legislatively established qualifications for license.

Barletta v. Golden Nugget Hotel Casino

580 F. Supp. 614 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 15, 1984

a conspicuous manner in the casino a notice in bold face type clearly legible and in substantially this form: “Any gaming licensee or officer, employee or agent thereof who has probable cause for believing that any person … Additionally, the Code provision does not provide immunity from civil and criminal liability.

Wartsila NSD North America, Inc. v. Hill International, Inc.

299 F. Supp. 2d 400 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 2003

Because the Court disagrees with the depiction of Beisecker’s proffered testimony, and because Beisecker is clearly a qualified expert on the subject matter on which he proposes to testify, the Court finds that Hill’s objection … Far from being completely untestable (as Hill argues), Bei-secker’s method is applied to clearly identified passages from the transcript.