Case law

Wilson v. City of Jersey City

209 N.J. 558 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 8, 2012

The immunity provision of subsection (b) clearly immunized 9-1-1 operators for any negligence “in rendering PSAP services” to users of the 9-1-1 systems. … The amended statute clearly expanded immunity to telecommunications carriers.

New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund v. Housing Authority & Urban Redevelopment Agency

68 F. Supp. 3d 545 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 2014

The Seaway court found the “ ‘fringe benefit’ ” provision insufficient to establish SPAD’s obligation to contribute to a pension plan because the provision “clearly” stated that the obligation to provide such benefits ran … The Court therefore only briefly notes that, the question of whether an entity qualifies as an employer under the MPPAA clearly constitutes a legal question for a district court, not an arbitrator, particularly because the

Jackson v. Florence Thread Co.

115 N.J.L. 175 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 1935

L., p. 708), the respondent clearly could not have invoked the limitation. … The point is made here, though the Supreme Court does not allude to it, that the act of 1924 does not express in its title any intent to modify or qualify the limitation imposed in the Workmen’s Compensation act.

Rachel A. Parsons v. Mullica Township Board of Education

440 N.J. Super. 79 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 2015

The Supreme Court in Kemp found that "N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 of the TCA is consistent with that policy," because N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 establishes a "general rule of absolute immunity." … However, "[a]ny liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity." N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b).

Steward v. Borough of Magnolia

134 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1975

[At 241] Thus, despite the substantial erosion of interspousal immunity, there are clearly some areas in which the doctrine is still viable. Paraphrasing what was said in Pearce v. N. J. Highway Authority, 122 N. J. … It clearly does not encompass any immunity available to the employee for a reason other than his public employment, such as an interfamilial relationship.

Egloff v. New Jersey Air National Guard

684 F. Supp. 1275 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 27, 1988

California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) the Supreme Court clearly established that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to physical extractions from the body. … United States, 663 F.2d 1226 (3d Cir.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 972 , 102 S.Ct. 2234 , 72 L.Ed.2d 845 (1982), which held that the established doctrine of military immunity precluded state causes of action against

TELLES v. NOGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 19, 2024

constitutional violation, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. D.

Basil v. Wolf

193 N.J. 38 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 11, 2007

Here, Wolf clearly was not a co-employee of Basil. Tellingly, the defendant insurer did not contest that before this Court. Dr. Wolf was not entitled to claim co-employee immunity from suit by Basil’s Estate. … It simply has a duty to provide a qualified physician to diagnose and treat.

Ewing v. Cumberland County

152 F. Supp. 3d 269 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2015

Mingúela is not- entitled to qualified immunity Defendant Mingúela alone argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … 'The qualified immunity claim is traditionally analyzed in two steps.

Rapp v. Awany

205 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 22, 2002

In accordance with this well recognized right, Plaintiff, as a judgment creditor of Singh and G.S.Freight, clearly has standing to sue Defendants in the present case. … Rather, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-23, the requirements of which are preconditions to qualifying for immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, states that “the application for the policy [be] accompanied by a written notice identifying and

Township of Holmdel v. New Jersey Highway Authority

22 N.J. Tax 428 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 18, 2005

Paramus Bor., 79 N.J. 302 , 310, 399 A.2d 616 (1979), and, in order to prevail, must establish that “the object or activity for which the [tax] immunity is sought is within the boundaries of the governmental entity’s statutory … powers and within the provisions of the specific statute granting the asserted immunity,” Holmdel Tp. v.

JH v. Mercer County Youth Detention Center

396 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 29, 2007

The judge thus concluded that the County defendants were immunized from liability by the immunity provisions of the TCA. … We hold that the Detention Center qualifies as a "person standing in loco parentis within the household" as to plaintiff within the meaning of the CSAA and that the County defendants are not immune under the TCA, based on

Strube v. Travelers Indemn. Co.

277 N.J. Super. 236 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 1994

Clearly, the Legislature *240 would not have made specific reference to those defunct organizations unless it intended the statutory immunity to extend to claims arising prior to June 29, 1993. … The statute, however, does not expressly establish a sanction to be applied to the insurer that does not comply with the notification requirement. Unavailability of the immunity might be one such sanction.

McNesby v. State

231 N.J. Super. 568 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1989

Any liability established by the act is subject to immunity created by the law. N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b). … While desiring a dual goal: that a mental hospital provide a safe environment where patients may exercise as much freedom as possible, we conclude that the Legislature clearly intended to immunize such decisions on terms

Wooley v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders

218 N.J. Super. 56 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1987

The county moved for summary judgment on the ground of the immunity granted under N.J.S.A. 59:4-6. … In ruling in favor of the county, the motion judge concluded that the design or plan immunity was applicable and further that plaintiffs had failed to establish that defendant's conduct with reference to the maintenance of

Peprah v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.

257 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1992

N.J.S.A. 17:30E-7, in relevant part, provides: Pursuant to the plan of operation, the association shall have the power and duty to: * * * * * * * * (e) Arrange for the issuance of automobile insurance to any qualified applicant … Torts *138 such as conversion, spoilation of evidence, assault, battery and the like are clearly outside the intended scope of duties of a servicing carrier for the Association.

Auerbach v. Jersey Wahoos Swim Club

368 N.J. Super. 403 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 2004

"[A]n entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it `(1) was formed for non-profit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes … Defendant is undisputedly a non-profit organization and contends that it also met the second and third prongs to qualify for charitable immunity.

MACALUSO EX REL. MACALUSO v. Knowles

341 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 2001

"Thus, in California, once the court concludes that there is no special relationship establishing a duty of care, the issue of statutory immunity need not be reached." Ibid. … Campbell, 294 N.J.Super. 18, 25 , 682 A. 2d 272 (Law Div.1996), is clearly erroneous and should be disregarded.

MAIN STREET AT WOOLWICH, LLC VS. AMMONS SUPERMARKET, INC.(L-1477-14, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

451 N.J. Super. 135 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2017

The lawsuit, the Court finds, to qualify as a sham must be objectively baseless. The Court is not to consider the underlying motivation. … Plaintiffs argue the motion judge's dismissal of their tortious interference claim is clearly erroneous.

Roman v. City of Plainfield

388 N.J. Super. 527 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 6, 2006

City of Newark . . . that Stewart establishes an absolute municipal immunity for deteriorated sidewalks." … The court reached that conclusion because the language of N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 itself establishes only a partial and qualified immunity for dangerous conditions of public property. Id. at 440 , 734 A. 2d 762 .