Case law

Aksanov v. Harrah's Casino Hotel Atlantic City

109 F. Supp. 3d 709 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2015

Carman, the Supreme Court stated, [a] government official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the … Accordingly, the Court holds that the Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Lathers v. Township of West Windsor

308 N.J. Super. 301 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1998

. *304 Prior to the Tort Claims Act, however, our courts recognized a common law immunity stemming from negligence in the removal of snow from public property. The common law immunity was established in Miehl v. … Because there was no landlord-tenant relationship established in Rossi , immunity applied. That rationale applies more forcefully under the facts of this case.

Ellison v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF SOUTH AMBOY

162 N.J. Super. 347 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 1978

See N.J.S.A. 59:4-2, expressly declaring the liability of a public entity for * * * injury caused by a condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in dangerous condition at the time of the … But if that is what it ultimately relies on, then clearly plaintiffs must have the opportunity at trial to test the accuracy and credibility of such testimonial recollection.

Community Action Programs Executive Directors Ass'n v. Ash

365 F. Supp. 1355 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 1973

One class consists of all individuals eligible, qualified and designated as participants in NYC programs for the summer of 1973. … The other class comprises all Community Action Agencies established and qualified under the EOA, which sponsor summer NYC programs.

State v. Froland

193 N.J. 186 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 12, 2007

At trial, the facts outlined above were established. … The Legislature could have qualified the word “parent” in the consent prong of the kidnapping statute based upon judicially decreed custodial status. It did not do so.

Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.(PATH)

809 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 21, 1992

Stated differently, the Supreme Court “has drawn upon principles of sovereign immunity to construe the [Eleventh] Amendment to “establish that ‘an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts 4 by her … This asymmetry, in fact, is based on the established precedent that a state may waive its sovereign immunity and consent to suit in state court while, nevertheless, maintaining its Eleventh Amendment Immunity. 14 Feeney,

BOYD v. PLAINFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 6, 2019

Qualified Immunity “‘The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … This search has been guided by the Supreme Court’s decisions explaining what constitutes “clearly established” law for purposes of the qualified immunity standard.

Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Shinn

938 F. Supp. 1243 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 1996

A Qualified Immunity The Atlantic County Defendants assert that Dovey is immune from suit because his conduct in performing his duties as president of the ACUA was objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established … Further, “qualified immunity shields [officials] ... from suit for damages if ‘a reasonable [official] would have believed [his] actions to be lawful, in light of the clearly established law and the information the ...

Smith v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP.

247 N.J. Super. 62 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 1, 1991

We do not, however, address whether the elements of a prima facie case were established because we are persuaded that immunity under the Act prevails over plaintiffs' claims in any event. … or the sign immunity, both of which give the State immunity.

In Re Application of Martin

90 N.J. 295 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1982

It further provides that “[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) (emphasis added). … N.J.S.A. 5:12-80(b). 17 Since the Tort Claims Act states that any immunity of a public entity prevails over any liability, N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b), the *336 immunity granted by the Casino Control Act is dispositive.

Children's Seashore House for Invalid Children v. Atlantic City

68 N.J.L. 385 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 17, 1902

shall not *388 claim stieli immunity by virtue of that act. … The use of the word in the statute under consideration is clearly within the rule here suggested.

Jackson v. Hankinson and Bd. of Ed. of New Shrewsbury

51 N.J. 230 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 19, 1968

But we hold the view that on the retrial the plaintiffs will not have the burden of establishing “active wrongdoing” as the Appellate Division asserted but will be entitled to prevail if they establish, in addition to causal … The school district immunity statute is under its terms clearly inapplicable (Titus v. Lindberg, supra, 49 N.

IFA Ins. Co. v. New Jersey Dept. of Ins.

195 N.J. Super. 200 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 20, 1984

We will not substitute our judgment for the considered opinion of representatives of the Executive Branch who are qualified by training and expertise to make this judgment. … Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 U.S. 207 , 79 S.Ct. 705 , 3 L.Ed. 2d 741 (1959), and, in any event, if the Association's conduct could be characterized as an unlawful group boycott, it would be immune under the state-action immunity

Deal v. Velez

244 F. Supp. 3d 435 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 2017

Defendants argue that they are entitled to sovereign and/or qualified immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity The Eleventh Amendment incorporates a general principle of sovereign immunity that bars citizens from bringing suits for damages against any State in federal court.

In Re Application of Waterfront Com'n of Ny Harbor

39 N.J. 436 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 4, 1963

Moreover, at its hearing on October 27, 1961, the Commission clearly recognized the defendants’ right to assert the privilege when it granted them immunity against prosecution. … : “It [the statute] does give ample protection against the use of such testimony in our own tribunals, and it is perfectly well established that this is a sufficient immunity; that all that the state is required to or can

Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co.

117 N.J. 539 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 5, 1990

A qualified privilege, on the other hand, enjoys a lesser degree of immunity and is overcome on a showing of actual malice. Specifically, in Coleman v. … We have also declared that proof of malice in the context of a qualified privilege must be established by clear and convincing evidence. See Burke v. Deiner, 97 N.J. 465, 481 (1984) (quoting New York Times v.

Acevedo v. Essex County

207 N.J. Super. 579 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 1985

Plaintiff has failed to establish the elements for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The law concerning recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is clearly set forth in Portee v. … THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS HAVE IMMUNITY BECAUSE AN INCORRECT AUTOPSY REPORT IS A MISREPRESENTATION UNDER N.J.S.A. 59:3-10, FOR WHICH THERE IS IMMUNITY. THIS IMMUNITY FOLLOWS TO THE COUNTY.

Malloy v. State

148 N.J. Super. 15 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 1977

The act re-established governmental immunity from tort liability except for specific provisions therein establishing liability. … I perceive no warrant to qualify that term in this section of the Tort Claims Act simply because the commentator provided a reason for its enactment. The comment is not the statute and should not be given that effect.

Woodstown Borough v. Friends Home at Woodstown

12 N.J. Tax 197 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 24, 1992

The claimant who asserts a tax exemption has the burden of proof to clearly bring itself within the tax exemption provisions. Long Branch v. … I conclude that the facts presented herein clearly establish that the two residential buildings of Woods Court are not exclusively used for charitable purposes.

Swede v. Passaic Daily News

30 N.J. 320 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 2, 1959

In such situations, the courts recognize a privilege or immunity. … The nature of the “conference room” meeting is clearly established by the testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses. The conclusion is inescapable that it was not only an official but also a public meeting.