Case law

Peterson v. Ballard

292 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 1996

The litigation privilege is firmly established in New Jersey case law. Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207, 215 , 661 A. 2d 284 (1995). … However, in determining whether a common law immunity has been abrogated the Court stated the rule clearly: Our cases have proceeded upon the assumption that common-law principles of legislative and judicial immunity were

L.E. AND P.T. VS. THE PLAINFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. A.D. AND R.B. (L-2513-15, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

456 N.J. Super. 336 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 5, 2018

The Act establishes the general principal of sovereign immunity, which is subject to exceptions, and specific grants of immunity. … Although the decision to qualify an expert under N.J.R.E. 702 is vested in the trial court's discretion, State v.

Jackson v. Hankinson

94 N.J. Super. 505 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 1967

We think the spirit of the rule called for pleading the defense of qualified immunity of a municipality so as to avoid surprise. … Clearly, the rule of qualified immunity of municipalities from tort liability, although a defense disfavored by present-day courts, is nevertheless a manifestation of public policy such as to have justified entertainment

Lopez v. City of Elizabeth

245 N.J. Super. 153 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 1991

Piccollella was qualified to speak to the resource allocation issue at all, in the absence of proof that he was part of or even aware of any decision-making process on the subject. … It is similarly appropriate to ask an entity that seeks qualified immunity for an allocation decision to prove it had a pothole because it decided to repaint road lines instead of filling potholes.

Stollenwerk v. Township of Mullica

316 N.J. Super. 379 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 1998

To establish a willful or wanton injury it is necessary to show that one with knowledge of existing conditions, and conscious from such knowledge that injury will likely or probably result from his conduct, and with reckless … When in the light of common experience and judicial precedents the facts and circumstances alleged clearly do not constitute such conduct, the mere fact that plaintiffs characterize them as willful or wanton is not sufficient

Camero v. Kostos

253 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 25, 1966

established plaintiff’s guilt of bribery. … Turning to the second issue, and the one which is deemed to be dispositive, i. e. immunity from personal suit, the law seems to have been clearly established in Barr v.

Porcelli v. Titus

302 F. Supp. 726 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 14, 1969

However, the appointments actually made,, considered in light of the record clearly rebuts any motivation or intention on the part of the Board to discriminate against qualified white persons in making promotions. … There is no reason to believe that when such criteria are established, appointments will not be made in a manner that will provide the Newark school system with persons best qualified to perform their respective tasks.

Onyiuke v. NEW JERSEY STATE SUPREME COURT

435 F. Supp. 2d 394 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2006

To state a claim under § 1983, Plaintiffs must establish (1) that they were deprived of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed … the practice of law is not a matter of grace, ... but of right for one who is qualified by his learning and his moral character.’

Allen v. SUMMIT CIVIC FOUNDATION

250 N.J. Super. 427 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 17, 1991

Defendant's certificate of incorporation clearly sets forth a charitable purpose. … Super. at 138 , 293 A. 2d 431 )] The Parker court went on to say: *433 Defendant clearly falls outside the scope of this definition.

Anasia Maison v. NJ Transit Corporation and Kelvin Coats (083484) (Essex County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 17, 2021

Defendants qualify for this immunity only if they engaged in some act or acts to enforce a law. … Defendants qualify for this immunity only if they engaged in some act or acts to enforce a law. See Bombace, 125 N.J. at 368.

S. J. Groves & Sons Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority

268 F. Supp. 568 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 18, 1967

Immunity can properly be treated as a unitary question, without differentiating between an agency that has been established as a distinct entity from the State, but nevertheless clothed with governmental immunity ; and an … agency which is immune because it has been established as an alter ego of the State.

Farias v. Township of Westfield

297 N.J. Super. 395 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 1997

The burden of proof for establishing immunity lies with the public entity. Bligen v. Jersey City Hous. Auth., 131 N.J. 124, 128 , 619 A.2d 575 (1993). … In any event, the statutory weather immunity provided by N.J.S.A 59:4-7 would clearly apply, and therefore, the issue of liability under N.J.S.A 59:4-2 does not arise.

Stratford Nursing & Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Kilstein

802 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 1991

Moreover, his decision, based as it was on DMAHS's standing interpretation of the pass-through provision, was objectively reasonable and was not contrary to clearly established law. see Butz v. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate any clearly established statutory

Geyer v. Faiella

279 N.J. Super. 386 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1995

We note in this regard that prosecuting officials are not immunized under the law of this State for conduct constituting actual malice such as making knowingly false charges. See N.J.S.A. 59:3-14; Burke v. … The foregoing conclusions make it unnecessary for us to consider defendants' argument that the action for malicious prosecution must fail because their absolute immunity to the defamation claim provides a complete defense

Crystal Ice-Bridgeton, LLC v. City of Bridgeton

428 N.J. Super. 576 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 2012

“[T]he costs of denying immunity would inevitably be passed directly by public contractors to the immunized public entity, rendering meaningless the tort immunity where the contractor was merely doing what it contracted to … ” in "cases in which pre-deprivation process was impracticable because the plaintiff was deprived of property as the result of a[n allegedly] . . unauthorized act of a state employee”). " ‘Construction official' means a qualified

Township of East Brunswick v. Middlesex County Board of Freeholders

224 N.J. Super. 44 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 14, 1987

First, it must be established whether these particular defendants fall within the protection of the Act. … Clearly, Edgeboro is a privately owned and operated business and not a “public entity” which exercises governmental functions.

Center for Molecular Med. v. Tp. of Belleville

357 N.J. Super. 41 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 17, 2003

"[W]hether a particular agreement is a lease depends upon the intention of the parties as revealed by the language employed in establishing their relationship ...." Thiokol Chem. Corp. v. … the asserted immunity. [ 329 N.J.Super. at 418-19 , 748 A. 2d 128 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).]

In re Branch

70 N.J.L. 537 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 23, 1904

That this statute, therefore, is one granting a privilege or immunity, is not to be questioned. … “Whereas it has become essentially necessary to the honor and dignity of this court as well as to the benefit and security of the suitors therein that some farther rule for the admission of att3rs should be established and

Reed v. Scheffler

218 F. Supp. 3d 275 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 2016

Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability; it is an absolute immunity from suit. Id. (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 200-01, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)). … in other contexts enjoy only qualified immunity.”

United States v. Menendez

132 F. Supp. 3d 610 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2015

Some allegations are clearly non-legislative. … A party asserting legislative immunity bears the burden of establishing the immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. Lee, 775 F.2d at 524 .