Case law

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

Home News v. State, Dept. of Health

144 N.J. 446 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 17, 1996

Sections 40.20 to 40.26 of the Registration of Vital Statistics Act establish the same procedures for birth defects. N.J.S.A 26:8-40.20 to -40.26. … Only in the unusual case will a request for cause-of-death information weigh so clearly in favor of disclosure as do the facts presented here.

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).]

D.V. ex rel. B.V. v. Pennsauken School District

247 F. Supp. 3d 464 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 2017

immunity; (4) the District is entitled to statutory “good faith” immunity; (5) plaintiffs cannot establish a viable hostile educational environment claim because D.V. is not a protected class, the alleged bullying was not … Since the Court does not find there was a violation of plaintiffs' constitutional rights, there is no need to address DeLape’s qualified immunity defense. .

Smith v. Kroesen

9 F. Supp. 3d 439 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2014

One basis is that he is immune from liability for plaintiffs injuries under N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-6 and 42 U.S.C. § 14501 et seq., both of which afford immunity to volunteer athletic coaches for damages incurred by a player during … under the federal volunteer immunity act.

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

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.

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.”

Cadmus v. LONG BRANCH BOARD OF EDUCATION AND INDUSTRIAL ASSOCS.

155 N.J. Super. 42 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 1977

Div. 1976), the terminology of the Tort Claims Act makes it obvious that the goal of the Legislature was to reestablish immunity for all governmental subdivisions within its definition of "public entity," a description clearly … to provide for, among other things, the establishment of ancillary services and activities to enhance the value of the programs ( e.g., pre-service and in-service training for teacher coordinators, establishment of priority

Kerchner v. Obama

669 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 20, 2009

Defendants Cheney and Pelosi are also entitled, Defendants argue, to legislative immunity, and Defendants Obama, Cheney, and Pelosi are entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims. II. DISCUSSION A. … have qualified.

Kyriakos v. STATE, DEPT. OF HUMAN SERV.

216 N.J. Super. 308 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 1987

The statute itself resolves such a conflict when it states that "any 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). Malloy v. … The Legislature has clearly expressed its desire that clinical judgments to house mental patients in the least restrictive environment should not create tort liability.

Wilson v. City of Jersey City

415 N.J. Super. 138 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 2010

However, we find that Burd clearly did not engage in a blind transfer. … Plaintiffs contend that the Jersey City defendants do not qualify for Title 52 immunity because Jersey City was not acting as a PSAP.

ABDUL-AHAD v. ESSEX COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 2022

Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability “‘unless the official violated a constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … Therefore, “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v.

Aversano v. PALISADES INTERSTATE

363 N.J. Super. 266 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 2003

When liability is found, public entities and public employees are entitled to any immunity found in the TCA as well as any immunity established by the common law. Id. at 355-56 , 627 A.2d at 1094-95 . … subject to any immunity previously established by common law."

P, T & L Construction Co. v. Commissioner, Department of Transportation

55 N.J. 341 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 2, 1970

Div. 1965), the court declared the claimants’ entitlement to a pay differential under a statute notwithstanding that “Whether or not petitioners receive the money to which they are clearly entitled rests exclusively with … Obviously there should be an established forum in which all such claims may be presented as of right and upon known principles. The judiciary of course is able to meet that need.

English v. Newark Housing Authority

138 N.J. Super. 425 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 1976

immunity for *429 all governmental bodies within its definition of "public entity." … Immunity is all-inclusive within that definition except as otherwise provided by the act.

Tp. of Washington v. CENT. BERGEN COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.

156 N.J. Super. 388 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 4, 1978

The claim of immunity by Central from the zoning ordinance. The contention of defendants that Central is immune from the provisions of the zoning ordinance is without merit. … Laurel characteristics, which Washington Township so clearly is here. Segal Constr. Co. v. Wenonah Bd. of Adj., 134 N.J. Super. 421 (App. Div. 1975).

Shiloh Turnpike Co. v. Bates

80 N.J.L. 171 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1910

L. 1866, p. 989), and especially the nineteenth section thereof, as constituting an irrepealable contract and thus affording prosecutor immunity from attack under the act of 1882. … It was at that time an established precedent *175 in turnpike charters. State v. Williamstown and Good Intent Co., 4. Zab. 547 (charter dated 1852); State, Mead, prosecutor, v.

Davenport v. Borough of Closter

294 N.J. Super. 635 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 1996

After deciding that the common law snow removal immunity established by Miehl was preserved by the TCA, id. at 402, 541 A. 2d 1029 , the Court held that the immunity barred plaintiffs' claims under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2. … That holding is clearly inapplicable here.

Hon. Dana L. Redd v. Vance Bowman(073567)

223 N.J. 87 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 11, 2015

The Court then observed: That sampling clearly establishes that the Legislature has determined, on multiple occasions, those municipal matters that should not be called before the voters … The burden is on the party seeking to defeat the Faulkner Act to clearly establish the existence of a contrary legislative intent.