Case law

Fischer v. Fischer

13 N.J. 162 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 1953

S. 43:16-1 et seq., as amended, is wholly immune from judicial appropriation, before the individual installments reach the hands of the pensioner, to the satisfaction of alimony established by judgment. … And even though voidable merely, it cannot stand as to payments in fuluro when its invalidity is established. All this is axiomatic truth.

Nl Industries, Inc. v. State(076550)

228 N.J. 280 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 27, 2017

In other words, a legislative waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressed clearly and unambiguously, Allen v. … We now proceed to determine whether the Legislature clearly and unambiguously intended to abrogate, retroactively, the State’s sovereign immunity for activities that occurred prior to enactment of the Spill Act.

Baldassano v. High Point Insurance

396 N.J. Super. 448 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 2007

Plaintiff first contends that defendant failed to comply with the statutory requirements to qualify for immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 because (1) the agent, not the insured, selected the level of UIM coverage on the coverage … Awany, 205 F.Supp.2d 279, 285-86 (D.N.J.2002) (holding that the requirements of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-23 “are preconditions to qualifying for immunity under N.J.S.A 17:28-1.9”).

Figueroa v. City of Camden

580 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 2, 2008

Health & Welfare, 411 U.S. 279, 280 , 93 S.Ct. 1614 , 36 L.Ed.2d 251 (1973) (“[I]t is established that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another … To establish a prima facie case under CEPA, Plaintiff must establish (1) his reasonable belief that his employer’s conduct violated a law, rule, or regulation; (2) a whistle-blowing activity; (3) an adverse employment action

O'BRIEN v. Borough of Woodbury Heights

679 F. Supp. 429 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 11, 1988

The individual defendants, as government officials, are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for their discretionary acts, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Weber, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3263 , 97 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987) (clearly established in 1983); Ward v. County of San Diego, 791 F.2d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir.1986) (clearly established in 1981), cert. denied sub nom Duffy v.

Hardwicke v. American Boychoir

368 N.J. Super. 71 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 2004

clearly encompasses the sexually abusive conduct by the school's employees that has been alleged in this case. … Clearly, I would not question that assessment. Neither, if the allegations are established, would I minimize the horror of the vile transgressions assertedly perpetrated upon Mr.

Schwartz v. Borough of Stockton

32 N.J. 141 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 5, 1960

The title designates the measure as “An Act establishing the non-liability of counties, municipalities and school districts by reason of *149 injury to the person from the use of any public grounds or buildings.” … Assuming solely for discussion purposes that this is a correct characterization, we do not think it divested immunity otherwise applicable. The statute does not qualify the word “use” by the adjective “public.”

Coyne v. State

366 N.J. Super. 578 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2004

In other words, DOT employees were implementing the immunized procedure established in the manual. … Whether those charged with implementing the discretionary standards established in the safety manual made choices that qualify for immunity cannot be determined without further development of the facts.

Robinson v. Jordan

804 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2011

Defendant's request for qualified immunity from plaintiff's federal claims must be denied. " ‘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 person would have known.’ " Montanez v.

Luis Perez v. Zagami, LLC (071358)

218 N.J. 202 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 2014

Thus, a plain language reading of subsection (c) does not clearly indicate to which claims the phrase “person acting under color of law” should apply. … well-established federal constitutional or statutory right”).

Murphy v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.

45 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 18, 1957

As to qualified privilege, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes the justification for the ruling of the trial court that there was no genuine factual issue. … See also, Evans, "Legal Immunity for Defamation," 24 Minn. L. Rev. 607 , 610 (1940).

Shehaiber v. University of Medicine & Dentistry

360 N.J. Super. 330 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 23, 2003

Perimeters around the scene were established. But no one immediately entered the pool itself. … If extrication of this child from that pool constituted a life support service, it would be immune from liability under the specific qualified immunity of the Act.

Sanchez v. Olivarez

94 N.J. Super. 61 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 13, 1967

That being so, this court iterates the language of Justice Francis in Koplik : "The policy issue is clear and if a legislature wishes to abrogate the immunity, it ought to say so clearly and unequivocally." … Such status being required to establish interspousal immunity, if there is no status, then there can be no immunity. The cases clearly indicate this.

Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc.

19 N.J. 552 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 31, 1955

In these situations the courts recognize a privilege or immunity which may be absolute or qualified; the difference is that the absolute privilege affords complete protection whereas the qualified privilege affords protection … Notwithstanding the foregoing, the plaintiff urges that the privilege in the instant matter should be qualified rather than absolute and it relies heavily on Finkelstein v. Geismar, 91 N. J. L. 46 (Sup.

Palcsey v. Tepper

71 N.J. Super. 294 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1962

Our sister state of Pennsylvania has, however, definitely and clearly spoken regarding the matter sub judice. … In Johnson the Pennsylvania Supreme Court established clearly the principle that when the policy reasons for the imposition of an interspousal immunity from suit no longer exist, such a suit may be maintained.

Islam v. City of Bridgeton

804 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2011

Defendant Shrader is also not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of immunity. Qualified immunity protects officer who “made a reasonable mistake about the legal constraints” on their actions. Curley v. … A mistake is not reasonable when it amounts to the violation of a “clearly established” right, such that “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

Chester A. Asher, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

22 N.J. Tax 582 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 5, 2006

Accordingly, whether in-state activity other than “solicitation of orders” is sufficiently de minimis to avoid loss of the tax *594 immunity conferred by § 381 depends upon whether that activity establishes a nontrivial additional … Because that activity serves an independent business function quite separate from requesting orders, it does not qualify for § 381 immunity.

Tontodonati v. City of Paterson

229 N.J. Super. 475 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1989

N.J.S.A. 54:5-114.9, which provided that the assignee of a tax sale certificate at public sale who obtained legal conveyance from the owner would not be entitled to a refund from the municipality, saying that the statute clearly … However, giving the words their ordinary meaning, while the assignments could be "actions" in the most literal sense, the words "administrative action" are qualified by the term "instituting," which implies the start of some

Nicoletta v. North Jersey District Water Supply Commission

77 N.J. 145 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 6, 1978

As the Supreme Court has held, executive officers are entitled to immunity where they act in good faith, as defined by the Court: *168 “[I]n varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch … We note that such qualified immunity of a public body is concordant with New Jersey legislative policy as expressed in our Tort Claims Act: 59 :2-3.

Birchwood Lakes Colony Club v. Medford Lakes

179 N.J. Super. 409 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1981

Plaintiff was under no obligation to establish as part of its case the absence of such immunity. The motion for judgment at the end of plaintiff's proofs was, of course, clearly premature. … We do not take the position that plan or design immunity could not have been established by the borough.