Case law

Suburban Trails, Inc. v. New Jersey Transit Corp.

620 F. Supp. 1383 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 31, 1985

That requirement has clearly been met in this case. … The court therefore declines to adopt plaintiffs’ suggestion that it qualify the state action immunity doctrine with a requirement that the state policy being promoted be shown valid under the supremacy clause before it may

Stanziale v. New Jersey Ex Rel. Commissioner of Transportation (In Re Theobald Industries, Inc.)

53 B.R. 506 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 21, 1984

Congress clearly expressed an intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of states so as to permit a debtor to resolve state tax matters in the bankruptcy court, leading this Court to conclude that it has jurisdiction over … Given the title of § 106, “Waiver of sovereign immunity,” and the language of § 106[b], the Court finds that Congress clearly intended to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states in proceedings to offset allowed governmental

Weiss v. Weiss

226 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 1988

Defendant and his mother had the house appraised and established an $18,000 purchase price based on that appraisal. … Since the burden of establishing the immunity of an asset from equitable distribution rests with the party asserting the immunity, Painter v.

Finderne Management Co. v. Barrett

355 N.J. Super. 197 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 2002

Comm'r. of Internal Revenue, 108 T.C. 524 , 1997 WL 328581 (1997), concluded that plans similar to the EPIC Plan did not qualify for favorable *860 tax treatment. … Financial's third-party complaint and Barrett's claim for contribution and indemnification on the grounds that Rossi is immune from suit based on the statutory accountant's immunity established in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25.

State v. Commissioner of Railroad Taxation

37 N.J.L. 228 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1874

Where the legislative intent is clearly manifested to establish the only rule that should govern, it operates by necessary implication as a repeal of all prior statutes in which a different rule was adopted. … The legislative intent to include all railroads within the scheme of taxation proposed in the first section of the act of 1873, is so clearly expressed as to admit of no doubt; and the mode of taxation therein established

Berkery v. Kinney

397 N.J. Super. 222 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 2007

It's so tough that clearly and convincingly is the standard [rather than] a preponderance of the evidence." In New York Times v. … Considering plaintiff's admissions with respect to his prior criminal convictions and the public records regarding his prior criminal involvement, plaintiff clearly qualifies as a limited-purpose public figure who must prove

REID

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 31, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields police officers from liability unless they violated clearly established rights. … Although the question of qualified immunity is generally a question of law, “a genuine issue of material fact will preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity.” Giles v.

Miglicio v. HCM Claim Corp.

288 N.J. Super. 331 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 12, 1995

To hold the servicing carrier immune from acts of bad faith would be contrary to the public policy governing unfair claims settlement practices as established in N.J.S.A. 17:29B-4(9) and N.J.A.C. 11:2-17.1. … Summary judgment based on plaintiff's failure to establish damages is denied.

Medical Society of New Jersey v. Herr

191 F. Supp. 2d 574 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2002

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue, in the alternative, that Doe’s § 1983 claim for damages against defendant Herr should be dismissed under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Recently, in Saucier v. … (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”)

Kuzmiak v. Brookchester

33 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 1955

Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion below, but then seemed to qualify the effect of this by stating: "This is a case of nonfeasance, not as plaintiff … provisions should not be construed to exempt a party from its own negligence or violation of a positive duty imposed by law. * * * we consider it to be a sound principle of law that, even if the language of the instant lease clearly

Starr v. Reinfeld

267 N.J. Super. 25 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1993

The judge concluded that “a denial of quasi-judicial immunity would certainly deter qualified individuals from agreeing to serve in any quasi-judicial appointments of the court” and “deny judges these valuable resources.” … The Supreme Court, through Justice Stevens, declared that: “The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity.”

Costa v. Josey

160 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 22, 1978

Any liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person. [ N.J.S.A. … The differences between discretionary activities and ministerial activities may not always be clearly apparent. See Czyzewski v. Schwartz, 110 N.J. Super. 255, 260 (App. Div. 1970).

Bonitsis v. NJ INSTITUTE OF TECH.

363 N.J. Super. 505 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 29, 2003

To reverse the trial court's evidentiary ruling, we must find that the trial judge's decision was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. R. 2:10-2. … Collini's letters was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to a new trial on that claim.

Sablic v. Croatia Line

315 N.J. Super. 499 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 23, 1998

However, we affirm the motion court's ruling that the Federal Sovereign Immunity Act immunizes Croatia Line from having to respond to Sablic's claims in our courts. … The Federal Sovereign Immunity Act does not define "ownership interest."

Richard W. Berg v. Hon. Christopher J. Christie(074612)

225 N.J. 245 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 9, 2016

Then, in 2011, Chapter 78 suspended further COLAs, freezing the cost-of-living adjustment at the 2011 level for current and future qualifying retirees. L. *256 2011, c. 78, § 25. … its immunity.

Wade v. NJ Turnpike Authority

132 N.J. Super. 92 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 8, 1975

The Legislature recognizes the inherently unfair and inequitable results which occur in the strict application of the traditional doctrine of sovereign immunity ... … On the other hand, the Turnpike Authority *98 clearly fits under the definition of "Public entities", namely as a public authority.

Kirby v. Columbian Institute

101 N.J. Super. 205 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 24, 1968

In the present case the Court is of the opinion that operating a public bar and bowling alley for profit is clearly a commercial activity bearing no substantial and direct relation to the mental and moral improvement of men … Compensation for torts committed by these commercial *212 establishments must be satisfied from the profits of the venture before any individual owner or shareholder receives his share of the net proceeds.

Ryans v. NEW JERSEY COM'N FOR THE BLIND, ETC.

542 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 6, 1982

Clearly, the practical concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in Pennhurst do not apply to Title I of the Rehabilitation Act. … Sovereign Immunity Defendants next move to dismiss the action as to Norma Krajczar on the ground that she is entitled to immunity from suit under N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(b).

Goncalvez v. Patuto

188 N.J. Super. 620 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 1983

Jaffee is clearly entitled to retrospective application. … We are nevertheless convinced that the fraternal relationship presumptively qualifies.

PAUL KAMIENSKI VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENTOF TREASURY(L-2106-10, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

451 N.J. Super. 499 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 16, 2017

("Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent."). … But, more persuasive is the Legislature's own understanding of the damages provision, as clearly set forth in the legislative history for the 2013 amendments.