Case law

Russell v. Coyle

266 N.J. Super. 651 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1993

Extant caselaw establishes that qualified immunity should shield Trooper Coyle from suit for damages if "a reasonable officer could have believed [Trooper Coyle's] warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established … As noted, with respect to qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the defendant violated some clearly established right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed. 2d at 410 .

Rouse v. Plantier

997 F. Supp. 575 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 1998

The level of generality at which the right asserted must be “clearly established” is the key conceptual issue in many qualified immunity cases, and has been clearly articulated by Plaintiffs, see Plaintiffs’ Letter-Brief … right to adequate medical care was “clearly established.”

Richmond Lapolla v. County of Union

449 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2017

The qualified immunity doctrine is an affirmative defense that "shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … And, as we observed, "[q]ualified immunity is applicable unless the official's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right." Id. at 28 (alteration in original).

Murphy v. Middlesex Cnty.

361 F. Supp. 3d 376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 17, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." … Thus, to establish qualified immunity, the MCPO Defendants are expected to address these cases and any similar cases in showing whether the rights implicated by this case may be considered clearly established.

GOFAN JUNIOR v. PEREKSTA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2021

In the familiar qualified immunity analysis, the court asks “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have … This though does not end this Court’s qualified immunity analysis.

Tormasi v. Lanigan

363 F. Supp. 3d 525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 2019

could clearly establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity." *538 Mammaro v. … clearly established right to circumcision."

Noble v. City of Camden

112 F. Supp. 3d 208 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2015

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity “if a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause existed” to arrest Plaintiff “in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] '’ officers … of qualified immunity. .

Rouse v. Plantier

987 F. Supp. 302 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 1997

Although most defenses of qualified immunity stand or fall on whether the right allegedly violated was “clearly established,” it is quite clear that even where the right is clearly established, the defense is still available … been clearly established.

Peterson v. Bernardi

719 F. Supp. 2d 419 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 2010

Clearly Established Second, was the constitutional right at issue clearly established? … If ever an area of law were not “clearly established”, this area was not. See Brandt v.

Plummer v. Department of Corrections

305 N.J. Super. 365 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 1997

reasonable, thereby entitling them to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … However, the fact that the law at issue is clearly established will not deprive these defendants from the qualified immunity defense if, in light of the specific facts known to them, they could reasonably believe that probable

Bryheim Jamar Baskin v. Rafael Martinez (081982) (Camden County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 9, 2020

If the right at issue is not clearly established, then the officer alleged to have violated that right will be entitled to qualified immunity. … Many Section 1983 cases rise or fall on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

G-69 v. Degnan

745 F. Supp. 254 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 1990

Qualified Immunity With respect to qualified immunity, plaintiff must show that defendants violated some clearly established right. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). … The complete lack of any analogous case requires this court to find that defendants’ conduct was not so unreasonable in light of clearly established law as to vitiate their qualified immunity.

VAN VALEN v. LANIGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 2020

established law, Lanigan would be entitled to qualified immunity. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

P.F. v. Mendres

21 F. Supp. 2d 476 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 1998

Generally speaking, “[ujnless plaintiffs allegations state a claim of a violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … established right occurred; Judge Greenberg would have ended qualified immunity analysis at that stage of the inquiry).

GRIFFIN v. THE CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 20, 2021

determining entitlement to qualified immunity” and teaches officials how to govern their conduct in the future. … Dep’t of Corr., 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011) (burden of establishing qualified immunity falls to official claiming it as defense (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982)).

CITADEL WELLWOOD URBAN RENEWAL LLC v. BOROUGH OF MERCHANTVILLE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

T & M HOMES, INC. v. Township of Mansfield

162 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 7, 1978

Defendants claim that they are entitled to an absolute immunity, while plaintiffs concede qualified immunity but no more. … In addition to overcoming a defense of qualified immunity, they must establish policy or custom which violates a constitutional right. In this action there is no point in holding defendants board and committee liable.

Winberry Realty Partnership v. Borough of Rutherford (083156) (Bergen County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 2021

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Tax Collector was entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that she did not violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory … “The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects government officials from 24 civil liability for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or

B.F. & K.L.F. v. Division of Youth & Family Services

296 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1997

The DYFS employees and the deputy attorneys general contend they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because they did not violate a clearly established federal statutory or constitutional right. … If the law was clearly established, the immunity defense would ordinarily fail. Id. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738, 73 L.Ed.2d at 411 . [ Id at 180-81, 536 A.2d 229 .]

Tofano v. Reidel

61 F. Supp. 2d 289 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

To this effect, government officials, performing discretionary functions, are afforded qualified immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Having found the conduct of the officers to be objectively reasonable, plaintiff has not alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Cf.