Case law

Harvest Restaurants Group, LLC v. Thomas P. Adach

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 2026

The limitation of liability provision, therefore, injured the public because it interfered with public welfare and safety by immunizing defendants. … safeguard life, health and property, and promote the public welfare, any person practicing or offering to practice professional engineering . . . in this State shall hereafter be required to submit evidence that [they are] qualified

Berry v. Chamberlain

53 N.J.L. 463 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1891

Looking into these several provisions of the act, it becomes clearly manifest that the course of proceeding here delineated constitutes, with respect to every essential,'relating either, to form or substance, a trial at law … In several of the states there are statutes having this narrow and abortive operation, but such bear but a. .slight analogy to the act under consideration, with respect ■either to the procedure established or the design of

Baxter v. AT & T COMMUNICATIONS

712 F. Supp. 1166 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 1989

A.T. & T.’s motion is based on its contention that because the record, including plaintiffs deposition testimony itself, clearly establishes that plaintiff was unqualified and unable to perform as a computer programmer, plaintiff … In order to create an inference of discrimination, plaintiff must show that he was qualified to be a computer programmer and that he was performing his duties adequately, but that he was discharged in spite of this.

JOHN BOVERY VS. MONMOUTH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (L-1095-18, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 16, 2020

charge, following federal precedent established under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … The court's qualified immunity analysis under the Tort Claims Act is also sound.

Nobrega v. Edison Glen Associates

167 N.J. 520 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 22, 2001

The variety — and in some eases the absence — of textual sources for the non-retroactivity doctrine compelled courts to formulate some qualifying principle for the exercise of judicial review of legislative retroactivity. … the defendants were complying with a lawful order), because in the earlier decision we recognized the “anomalous result” produced by our holding — that the fellow guard members might be held hable while the State remained immune

Schwam v. Township of Cedar Grove

228 N.J. Super. 522 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 7, 1988

The parties agree that 15 of the 16 units were occupied by senior citizens entitled to protective status, but the status of the 16th unit was not clearly determined below. … We recognize that plaintiff had the burden to establish that the county board of taxation's determination in upholding the assessment was erroneous. Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic, 100 N.J. 408, 413 (1985).

Panarello v. City of Vineland

160 F. Supp. 3d 734 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2016

is immune, but if Plaintiff established that the officers acted willfully, then N.J.S.A. 59:2-10 would immunize the City from liability on these claims.” … No defendant has moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.

State of New Jersey v. Daniel A. Borjas

436 N.J. Super. 375 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2014

The statute thus clearly is targeted at defendants who "knowingly" possess or make forms of identification that are of a kind deliberately fashioned by a person  whether it be defendant himself or a third party  in … On the other hand, a defendant's ignorance of the law making his or her possession of something illegal is not, in and of itself, a basis to immunize a criminal defendant.

Bucino v. Malone

12 N.J. 330 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 30, 1953

These cases, however, are clearly distinguishable. … Such provisions are clearly valid. In Jersey City v. Martin, 127 N. J.

State v. Sandstrom

277 N.J. Super. 354 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 1994

Noting the impact that test results have in drunk driving prosecutions, our Supreme Court has said that “proper administration of the test [must] be clearly established before the reading is admitted in evidence.” … “This includes full proof that the equipment was in proper order, the operator qualified and the test given correctly.” Ibid.

The Nar Group, Inc. v. Save Lebanon Township Coalition

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 2025

Plaintiff cites Rule 4:6-1(b) as establishing a distinction between a motion to dismiss and a responsive pleading. … However, those conversations failed to establish that defendant's and Bohn's opposition to plaintiff's development application was a sham precluding immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Villanueva v. Zimmer

431 N.J. Super. 301 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 2013

That being said so, it cannot come in for the proposition to establish that the plaintiff is presumed to be permanently disabled which is what the plaintiff wants to use this finding for____ What plaintiff needs to establish … Clearly, it is not a written statement “of an act done,” or an “event observed” by a public official. Evid. R. 63(15) (emphasis added).

OTERO v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2021

In determining the applicability of qualified immunity, a court must determine (i) whether the alleged facts demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right and (ii) whether that right was “clearly established at the … While qualified immunity shields government officials from claims unless both prongs are met, courts may address them in any order. Id. at 239–40.

State v. Harvey

151 N.J. 117 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 30, 1997

The burden to "clearly establish" each of these methods is on the proponent. Williams, supra, 252 N.J. Super. at 376 , 599 A. 2d 960 . … The uncritical admission of this evidence in a capital trial without even remotely establishing its validity is an egregious wrong. E. The burden is on the proponent of evidence clearly to establish its admissibility.

Julie Ferreira v. Woodbridge Township; et al.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2026

Such allegations are insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish the seizure element of a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. See Rainas v. … immunity.

Artulde Point Du Jour v. Township of Union

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2026

Citing an unpublished opinion, plaintiff also claims the Township's failure to establish a policy preventing the discrimination of mentally ill individuals was a "fatal flaw" to its immunity argument. … Because the Township defendants' conduct was in accordance with the civil commitment statute, their actions cannot qualify as "outrageous." See Leang, 198 N.J. at 587.

Veggian v. CAMDEN BOARD OF EDUCATION

600 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 23, 2009

. § 185 provides Gordon with immunity from individual liability. … Defendants argue that Gordon acted at all relevant times in her capacity as president of the CEA and, therefore, is immune from liability.

United States v. Roebling

244 F. Supp. 736 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 1965

But these rights are granted only when the defendant is in the process of establishing a lifesaving station on the conveyed property. This is clearly expressed. … By definition a fee simple title cannot be qualified or limited, but carries with it full legal rights with respect to the property.

State v. Kinney Bldg. Drug Stores, Inc.

56 N.J. Super. 37 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 1959

. * * * No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of … The crime, and the elements, constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue.

Loigman v. Township Committee

409 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 5, 2009

N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(1)(a)(i). *1004 There is no dispute that the legal services implicated here qualify as professional services within the meaning of this law. … However, regardless of the method by which counsel is compensated, the duties for which the compensation is to be paid must be clearly defined and separated.