Case law

State v. Zwillman

112 N.J. Super. 6 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 19, 1970

Here the defendant was not allowed to go into the specific circumstances under which the immunity was based or the nature of arrangements made for immunity. … A trial judge may intervene in the trial during the introduction of evidence to qualify or expedite matters.

New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority v. Gruzen Partnership

125 N.J. 66 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 22, 1991

When analyzing the enabling statute of an entity, “it may be said to be a fundamental rule of construction that what is not clearly granted by the state is withheld and that statutes permitting suits against the state, being … Hence, we believe that the fairest course to all is to adhere to the principles of decision that this Court established in Willis and P T & L Construction Co.

Marcinczyk v. STATE POLICE TRAINING COM'N

203 N.J. 586 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 18, 2010

Div.2003) ("[t]hese immunities, so stoutly re-established by the Legislature, cannot be thwarted or waived other than by a legislative enactment of equal dignity"), so are they barred from granting themselves greater immunity … Rather, the legislative history to the TCA reveals the distinctly different, focused purpose to broadly assert sovereign immunity, to have the exceptions to the re-establishment of immunity interpreted narrowly and in favor

Eastern, Inc. v. Shelly's of Delaware, Inc.

721 F. Supp. 649 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 8, 1989

Defendant United States Postal Service (“USPS”) is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the government of the United States. … Allowing subcontractors to proceed directly to district court would clearly produce the same problems Congress sought to foreclose.

LYLES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 2, 2026

[O]nce the defendant[] ha[s] started things off by raising qualified immunity, who has to come forward and show what the “clearly … then the defendant gets qualified immunity.

Van Engelen v. O'LEARY

323 N.J. Super. 141 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 1999

Clearly a major problem in Sussex Borough is an inordinate use of alcohol and drugs. This must end now! … Plaintiffs do not clearly articulate their theory as to what O'Leary intended to accomplish by his asserted pillorying of Curcio and Van Engelen.

PETLOCK v. NADROWSKI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2021

An award of qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability and suit “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.

Stone v. Wyckoff

102 N.J. Super. 26 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 1968

By then all the registered signatories would be qualified to vote. By "qualified" the statute as a matter of good sense must be deemed to mean registered, and qualified by the time the election will have been held. … The specific causes for removal given in the instant petitions are clearly adequate. Ibid.

Mesivta Ohr Torah Lakewood v. Township of Lakewood

24 N.J. Tax 314 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 10, 2008

[I bid. 1 Once plaintiff establishes that the property is owned by an entity that operates a house of worship, plaintiff must establish four factors to qualify for the exemption: (1) the residence must be occupied as a parsonage … Justice (then Judge) Long reasoned that the property owner was not entitled to charitable immunity because it “was not created to lessen the burden on government” which ordinarily justifies the immunity “but to obtain as

NDUAGUBU

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 16, 2025

And at this stage, “qualified immunity will be upheld . . . only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leveto v. … to qualified immunity, if the alleged rights-violation was not “clearly established” at the time of the incident.

GROHS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 27, 2026

“Qualified immunity protects government officials … from liability for damages as long as their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … When assessing a government official’s qualified immunity claims, a court must decide whether (1) “the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right”; and (2) “the right at issue was “clearly established

Marcinczyk v. State of New Jersey Police Training Commission

203 N.J. 586 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 18, 2010

for their negligence within the limitations of this [A]ct and in accordance with the fair and uniform principles established herein.” … Taylor Mills Developers, Inc., 357 N.J.Super. 446, 453 , 815 A.2d 988 (App.Div.2003) (“[t]hese immunities, so stoutly re-established by the Legislature, cannot be thwarted or waived other than by a legislative enactment of

Brown v. Brown

112 N.J. Eq. 600 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 18, 1933

Where such residence or domicile is once established it is presumed to continue unless there be proof establishing the acquisition of a new domicile or residence; and to establish the latter more than a mere change of abode … It clearly appears therefore that the wife is not a bona fide non-resident entitled to immunity from the service of civil process or writs when in this state necessarily for attendance at court.

Josephson v. Joslin

38 F.R.D. 344 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 1965

. ¶ 12.08 at pp. 2245-46, concisely summarizes the *346 well-established rule governing dismissal under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6): “ ‘A [complaint] may be dismissed on motion if clearly without any merit; and this want of merit … Here the alleged facts clearly demonstrate the incidence of a legal duty.

Bennett v. City of Atlantic City

288 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 31, 2003

The fact that City firefighters are career civil employees whose hiring and promotional tests are established and administered by the DOP, does not establish the level of enmeshment required to give the City immunity from … As to Plaintiffs’ federal claims, the United States Supreme Court has clearly stated that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not “override States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Quern v.

Greenberg v. Pryszlak

426 N.J. Super. 591 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 2012

immunity. … We need not discuss the parties’ arguments regarding the qualified immunity defense because, for the same reasons discussed with regard to the other issues, the State defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is fraught with

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Lanzaro

271 N.J. Super. 425 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1992

The Corporation is immune from taxes other than ad valorem real property taxes. … Just as clearly, however, the statutory fee allowed to the sheriff is not a direct tax on anyone’s capital, including that of the RTC.

Sanchez v. Department of Human Services

314 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1998

It has been variously assigned to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. TV, to the Commerce Clause, and to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. … qualified bona fide residents.

Gardner v. Rosecliff Realty Co.

41 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 1956

a defense clearly does not bar a subsequent litigation by the same plaintiffs against the principal. … The question whether or not Rosenthal knowingly *9 and intentionally made the misrepresentation of fact, above stated, was clearly a matter to be determined by the jury.

DIAZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 27, 2026

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The clearly established inquiry must be undertaken with specificity. As discussed above, qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”