Case law

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

743 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 2010

These principles, of course, are related, as a waiver that does not ‘clearly’ extend to a separate lawsuit generally would not preclude a State from asserting immunity in that separate action. … Both cases clearly establish that a prior sovereign immunity waiver does not extend to a subsequent suit simply because that suit is between the same parties and involves the same subject matter as the previous suit.

Township of Holmdel v. New Jersey Highway Authority

190 N.J. 74 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 4, 2007

(“The [Legislature very clearly disapproved of the Authority’s expansive interpretation of the provisions which the Authority believed authorized it to build an Arts Center.”), aff'd, 893 F.2d 1331 (3d Cir. 1989). … The phrase “as transferred” qualifies the Arts Center’s categorization as a highway project. The phrase does not imply an enlargement of the Arts Center’s statutory purpose.

Polanco v. Omnicell, Inc.

988 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 26, 2013

and thus immune from suit.” … However, OmmceH's December 31, 2012 letter clearly indicates that "Omnicell is taking steps to improve its security program and practices in response to this incident.

Stringfield v. City of Hackensack

68 N.J. Super. 38 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 26, 1961

the immunity, in part by means of "a more lenient attitude toward the proprietary classification." … Defendant urges N.J.S.A. 40:60-25.5 in support of its alleged immunity.

Dr. Terry Ramnanan v. Colin Keiffer, Esq.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 2025

a clearly established right not to be prosecuted based on fabricated evidence." … In situations where absolute immunity may not apply, a governmental official may be entitled to qualified immunity "for discretionary acts that do 'not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Konitch v. Hartung

81 N.J. Super. 376 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 1963

The trial court established a three-pronged test for the application of N.J.S.A. 34:15-8: it must appear that (1) plaintiff suffered a compensable injury; (2) plaintiff and *379 defendant were co-employees; and (3) defendant … The implied element in the statute under consideration is the one stated by the trial judge, and clearly set out in 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 72.20, p. 174 (1961) — that "the immunity attaches to the co-employee

Denis v. City of Newark

307 N.J. Super. 304 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1998

Plaintiffs arguments are clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(E). II. … The Tort Claims Act did not change the well established body of law enunciated in McAndrew .

Bartolo v. Boardwalk Regency Hotel Casino, Inc.

185 N.J. Super. 534 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 1982

However, defendants contend that N.J.S.A. 5:12-121(b) confers an immunity upon casinos comparable to that which N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(e) confers upon retail merchants. … To be sure, this section authorizes casino officials to detain patrons under certain circumstances and provides an accompanying *540 qualified immunity from civil liability.

Kolbeck v. Kramer

84 N.J. Super. 569 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 1964

Generally the statutes require that pupils undergo: physical examination, N.J.S.A. 18:14-57; general vaccination, N.J.S.A. 18:14-52; diphtheria immunization, N.J.S.A. 18:14-64.2; polio immunization, N.J.S.A. 18:14-64.10, … The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction

Lucier v. Williams

366 N.J. Super. 485 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 2004

The foisting of a contract of this type in this setting on an inexperienced consumer clearly demonstrates a lack of fair dealing by the professional. … This excessively restricted damage allowance, which caps the inspector's exposure at $192.50, effectively immunizes him from the consequences of his own negligence.

Adams v. County of Atlantic

137 N.J.L. 648 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 3, 1948

.” / The two sections of the statute as enacted are under the heading entitled “Privileges and Immunities,” and we are of the opinion that both sections are related and must be read together. … We are satisfied that the respondent does not qualify for the salary differential under the statutory provisions aforesaid. The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Subranni v. Navajo Times Publishing Co. (In re Group Communications, Inc.)

568 B.R. 616 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2016

Another factor that distinguishes an organization entitled to tribal sovereign immunity (as opposed to a mere business interest of a tribe) is that the tribal council establishes the organization pursuant to its powers of … Auth., 144 F.3d 581, 583 (8th Cir. 1998) (concluding that a housing authority “established by a tribal council pursuant to its powers of self-government” is a tribal agency entitled to tribal sovereign immunity).

Senisch v. Carlino

423 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 1, 2011

Plaintiffs claim does not establish clear and convincing evidence of falsity or reckless disregard for falsity of the letter, nor does it overcome the qualified privilege of defendants to provide a truthful reference letter … It also provides immunity from civil liability if a health care entity or other person complies with its provisions: e.

JOHNSON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 2025

To overcome a defendant's claim of qualified immunity, the court must determine: “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the … explain why Nichols should be granted immunity under the “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity doctrine

Todd v. South Jersey Hospital System

152 F.R.D. 676 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 21, 1993

Plaintiffs claim that their need for discovery outweighs any qualified privileges which defendants may assert as to the documents. … This immunity does not run to other sources, even if the information they possess is identical. *687 The text of 42 U.S.C. § 1320c-9 does not create a derivative immunity for hospitals and in-house committees which serve

STEVENSON v. THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF MONMOUTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 3, 2024

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 … And because a prisoner’s right to avoid gratuitous use of force by corrections officers was clearly established by 2013, the Court also denies qualified immunity on prong two. IV.

Watford v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board

113 N.J. Super. 495 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1971

J. 341 (1969), destroying sovereign immunity, shows the *506 judicial journey into enlightenment and justice in these matters. … It is but a short step from destroying the sovereign immunity of the State to the detriment of its citizens to judicial incursion into the Fund’s cacoon of claimed immunity.

In Re Brown

244 B.R. 62 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 3, 2000

That district court rulings are entitled to substantial deference by bankruptcy courts is well established. See, e.g., In re Jason Realty, L.P., 59 F.3d 423 , 429 n. 2 (3d Cir.1995). … Sovereign Immunity.

Bono v. United States

145 F. Supp. 2d 441 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 7, 2001

These courts have found that § 2680(b) clearly applies in this context and cloaks the United States with immunity from suit. … This case does not involve the mere loss or miscarriage of mail, which § 2680(b) clearly covers.

Schrantz v. Luancing

218 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1986

Baer was found qualified to testify as a medical expert his testimony may not be struck. … Baer's testimony was immunized from a motion to strike so that whatever the testimony elicited on cross-examination it would only effect Dr.