Case law

RADIATION DATA, INC. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (L-1260-16, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

456 N.J. Super. 550 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 2, 2018

Most pertinent to the present appeal, defendants invoked principles of qualified immunity and argued that RDI's constitutional and NJCRA claims must be dismissed because defendants violated no "clearly established" laws … Therefore, "unless the 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."

Kirk v. City of Newark

109 N.J. 173 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 1988

Thus, the qualified-immunity defense would be lost if the official knew or reasonably should have known that his or her action would violate plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights or if he or she maliciously … For Kirk to defeat Cardillo’s assertion of the defense of qualified immunity, Kirk must show that the law was clearly established at the time of the incident.

MORAN v. HAWTHORNE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 18, 2025

The Officer Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. However, those arguments presently “rest on what are currently contested factual averments.” Velardo v. … City of Elizabeth, 436 F. 3d 397, 405 (3d Cir. 2006) (“Although qualified immunity is a question of law determined by the Court, when qualified immunity depends on disputed issues of fact, those issues must be determined

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRISTOPHER KIM (16-07-0591 AND 17-02-0115, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 2018

at 123 (analyzing the exemption in the context of a claim of qualified immunity). … at 343 (holding "it is only when the facts known to the prosecutor clearly indicate or clearly establish the appropriateness of an instruction that the duty of the prosecution arises"); cf. State v.

BRYHEIM JAMAR BASKIN VS. RAFAEL MARTINEZ (L-0901-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 14, 2018

"The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Ct. 1765, 1776 (2015) ("Qualified immunity is no immunity at all if 'clearly established' law can simply be defined as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.").

OKWUEGO v. CORREIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 7, 2024

But even if this were addressed, it is not clear that the Plaintiff could get over the qualified immunity hurdle here. … (1) violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”)

JACOBS v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 2019

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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 … Insomuch as the CO Defendants would like to invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity because their purported after-the-fact conspiratorial actions did not violate a then-clearly established constitutional right, that attempt

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

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2022

Gregory was entitled to qualified immunity for the initial stop, while holding that DSFC Ciano was entitled to qualified immunity. … The second prong of qualified immunity asks whether the right at issue was so clearly established that the officer should have known that he or she was committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances.

JONES v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 26, 2024

Step One of the Qualified Immunity Doctrine and Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs The two-prong test for qualified immunity considers whether the facts … Qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability and suit “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

EIVICH v. EAST GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2025

Beyond reciting the standard for qualified immunity and reiterating their argument as to why the excessive force should be dismissed, defendants do not expressly argue how or why Robostello is entitled to qualified immunity … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“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

Lorraine Gormley v. Latanya Wood-El (069717)

218 N.J. 72 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 2014

It held, however, that those rights were not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore dismissed the claims against the officials on the ground of qualified immunity. 1 Gormley v. … The Appellate Division, nevertheless, concluded that that right was not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore granted defendants qualified immunity and dismissed the federal civil-rights

Ingram v. Township of Deptford

858 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2012

deprivation violated clearly established law. … was clearly established.

State of New Jersey, by the Commissioner of Transportation v. Cherry Hill Mitsubishi, Inc.

439 N.J. Super. 462 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2015

Turning to the State's assertion of qualified immunity as grounds for dismissal, it is well-established that the doctrine balances the need to hold public officials accountable for improperly … We ask (1) "whether a constitutional right would have been violated on the facts alleged" and (2) "whether the right was clearly established." Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at 200, 121 S.

SERVAIS v. CACCIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2023

Second, the Court considers “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the official’s actions.” Id. “An answer in the negative to either prong entitles an officer to qualified immunity.” … See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (stating that qualified immunity applies unless “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct” (emphasis added)).

PHILLIPS v. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Pa. 2001) (“[T]he right to be free from the fabrication of evidence, falsifying documents, and malicious prosecution is clearly established.”).

Rouse v. Plantier

997 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 1998

The level of generality at which the right asserted must be “clearly established” is the key conceptual issue in many qualified immunity cases, and has been clearly articulated by Plaintiffs, see Plaintiffs’ Letter-Brief … right to adequate medical care was “clearly established.”

T.A. VS. ERICK MELGAR (L-0466-12, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2018

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (stating the doctrine of qualified immunity, protects government officials "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … Thus, "a defendant cannot have qualified immunity if she was deliberately indifferent; a reasonable [prison official] could not believe that her actions comported with clearly established law

Richmond Lapolla v. County of Union

449 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2017

The qualified immunity doctrine is an affirmative defense that "shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … And, as we observed, "[q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id. at 28 (alteration in original).

Grohs v. Yatauro

984 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2013

The qualified immunity analysis Qualified immunity protects government officials such as Defendants Yatauro and Lanigan from liability for damages as long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or … Whether the Complaint alleges a constitutional violation that is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity Grohs’ claim that inadequate hot water at the STU impaired the safety and well-being of its residents

Gormley v. Wood-El

422 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 18, 2011

In that regard, we conclude, because the right asserted was not clearly established at the time plaintiff was attacked, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his or her conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Ibid.