Case law

Jodeco, Inc. v. Hann

674 F. Supp. 488 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 4, 1987

In the alternative, defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified good-faith immunity because their conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … and the officials performing them may only receive the protection of qualified immunity.

Gattuso v. New Jersey Department of Human Services

881 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 25, 2012

As it is Plaintiffs’ burden *647 to establish the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs have not pointed the Court to any valid abrogation clause for these claims (to the extent that either such statutory claim … Plaintiffs have not alleged that they themselves are independently qualified to receive services from Defendants.

ABDUR-RAHEEM

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 2, 2026

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants next argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established right. (Motion at 7–12.) … Defendants rely on the clearly established prong as the basis for their assertion of qualified immunity.

Grodjesk v. Faghani

198 N.J. Super. 449 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 1985

That protection, in effect, is the very same qualified immunity which, under N.J.S.A. 2A:47A-1, subjects a complainant to civil liability for complaints which are false, malicious and without probable cause. … If the complainant is sued, he is protected by a qualified immunity if he has acted reasonably and in good faith.

State v. Penta

127 N.J. Super. 201 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 1974

Div. 1969): * * * Defendant never "held" the office of councilman to which he was elected because he never assumed the office by qualifying for it. … is conceivable that illegal dealings, including threats and criminal activities, could be carried on with complete immunity by a person so situated, in contemplation of holding such office, and this clearly contrary to public

ROBERTS v. COUNTY OF ESSEX

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 2022

“To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of … Under current law, Roberts might possess such a claim, but Laurino and Bolan are entitled to qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established as of 2005.

Rutgers v. Piluso

60 N.J. 142 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 24, 1972

A. 18A:65-1 to -35, L. 1956, c. 61, the entity thereby created is not such an instrumentality of the state as to qualify it for immunity from local land use regulation on that basis. … The contention appears to be that only a contract relationship was thereby established between the state and the Board of Trustees of the prior institution and that the Legislature did not intend to confer immunity.

Del Tufo v. Township of Old Bridge

278 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 4, 1995

The jury's verdict in the present case establishes that when the police arrested Mr. … For this qualified immunity to apply — qualified because it may be overcome by a finding that the employee's determination was "palpably unreasonable" — there are two prerequisites.

David Timpanaro v. Jenkinson's Pavilion, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 2025

the parking fee alone did not qualify as consideration, "the fact that [p]laintiffs planned to spend money at the boardwalk . . . should nonetheless establish the consideration necessary to preclude an immunity claim … (Alleged LLA Immunity) "To sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish four elements: '(1) a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) proximate cause, and (4) actual damages.'"

Thomas v. Adams

55 F. Supp. 3d 552 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 20, 2014

Qualifíed Immunity The test governing the defense of qualified immunity is long-established: “Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional … right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Stothers v. Martini

6 N.J. 560 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 2, 1951

S. 40 :72-l ei seq.) and the plaintiffs are all citizens, residents and qualified voters of the. city. … -vote and the right to hold 'office are coextensive and that the electors may vote for persons not qualified to hold office.

J & a REALTY v. City of Asbury Park

763 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 18, 1991

To fund its new sewer plant, the city passed a sewer ordinance which established a system for assessing property owners for sewer charges. … While Owen does not alter the qualified immunity available to governmental employees sued in their individual capacities, 445 U.S. at 638 n. 18, 100 S.Ct. at 1409 n. 18, J & A sues the individual defendants only in their

State v. Spindel

24 N.J. 395 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 27, 1957

It cannot be that the witness may confess a criminal offense while on the witness stand in the legislative inquiry and thereby secure immunity from prosecution, even though the offense may be established by evidence other … But the associated words “or admitted in evidence” qualify and clarify the more indefinite term “used,” and make certain the legislative end in view.

Berger v. State

71 N.J. 206 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 21, 1976

governmental unit to be immune with respect to the particular enterprise. … Prom these enactments, it is clear that the Legislature intended to immunize the Department of Institutions and Agencies from the operation of local zoning provisions which prohibit the establishment of a group home.

Citizens State Bk. of NJ v. Libertelli

215 N.J. Super. 190 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1987

In order to qualify for the absolute privilege accorded to judicial proceedings, a defamatory statement must be made in the course of the proceeding. … immunity."

Antonelli v. New Jersey

310 F. Supp. 2d 700 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2004

See id. at 683 . *714 It is also well-established that Congress’s passage of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. Will v. … Plaintiffs did not pass the exam and clearly did not have a protected interest in being placed on the eligibility lists.

Abdallah v. OCCUPATIONAL CENTER OF HUDSON CTY., INC.

351 N.J. Super. 280 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 30, 2002

Clearly, OCHC is not a religious organization. For the reasons we hereafter explain, it appears that it is also not an educational organization within the intendment of the statute. … We do not regard this function as exclusively educational in any traditional, usual or common-language sense although, clearly, by virtue of the nature of its function, it potentially qualifies as a charitable endeavor. [

Gregory v. Administrative Office of the Courts of New Jersey

168 F. Supp. 2d 319 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 2001

For a congressional abrogation of the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to be constitutional, two predicates must be met. First, Congress must unequivocally intend to abrogate the immunity. … To plead a cause of action under Ex parte Young, a plaintiff must establish a present violation of federal law. B.H. Papasan v.

Connor v. Powell

162 N.J. 397 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 2000

If officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the issue of probable cause, the doctrine of qualified immunity should be applied. Malley v. … In order to enjoy qualified immunity, the official must demonstrate that “his conduct was justified by an objectively reasonable belief that it was lawful.” Gomez v.

Family Finance Corp. v. Gaffney

11 N.J. 565 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 2, 1953

The Legislature has seen fit to establish the policy that the general welfare is best subserved by restricting the.number of small loan establishments in a given community. … The findings clearly refute any suggestion that his action was designed to advantage the present licensees.