Case law

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Thomas J. Trautner

Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 2025

Although the Eleventh Amendment pertains to state sovereign immunity in federal court, it is well-established that states enjoy sovereign immunity from suit in their own courts and may define the scope of that immunity. … in federal court, it is well-established that states enjoy sovereign immunity from suit in their own courts and may define the scope of that immunity.”

Behring International, Inc. v. Imperial Iranian Air Force

475 F. Supp. 396 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 1979

In enacting the Act, Congress clearly considered each of these four categories and expressed its intentions with regard to each of them. … That history shows quite clearly that Congress intended the Immunities Act to govern notwithstanding the savings clause of sections 1604 and 1609 whenever an international agreement was silent upon an issue which the Act

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.

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.

In Re Estate of Ericson

74 N.J. 300 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 3, 1977

of non-qualified property. … Article II seeks to immunize the marital share from the payment of all death duties.

International Missions, Inc. v. Lincoln Park

87 N.J. Super. 170 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 1965

. * * * Otherwise any individual whose home is in New Jersey and who incorporated here for religious purposes and who evangelized all over the country would be entitled to the immunity. … The question here is whether Reverend Davis qualifies as a "district superintendent" of International. We conclude that he does not.

Cogsville v. City of Trenton

159 N.J. Super. 71 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 1978

prevents the city from invoking that immunity in the first place. … Whether the claim is predicated on a failure to adopt or enforce a law, or on administrative action or inaction, it is clearly barred by the act.

Lipman v. Rutgers-State Univ. of NJ

329 N.J. Super. 433 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 2000

Discovery also revealed that Lipman's New Jersey bank accounts were both established by his father when Lipman was a child. The only bank account established solely in Lipman's name was in Philadelphia. … Rutgers has also been deemed immune from local real property taxation. Rutgers v. Piscataway Township, 1 N.J.Tax 164 (Tax 1980).

Frank v. Briel

96 N.J. Super. 67 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1967

The doctrine of sovereign immunity is firmly established in our jurisprudence and "[i]t is applicable not only to suits against the State itself but also to suits against State agencies." Taylor v. N.J. … It is not for this court to usurp a function clearly delegated by the Legislature to an administrative agency, especially where the ultimate injury to plaintiffs is as hypothetical as it is in this case.

Weeks v. City of Newark

62 N.J. Super. 166 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 1960

law unless such an intention is clearly expressed or plainly exhibited by the words of the statute." … A majority of jurisdictions elsewhere hold that a municipality performs a governmental function and is immune from tort liability when it establishes and maintains a public swimming pool, even where a nominal charge is made

DeVries v. Habitat for Humanity

290 N.J. Super. 479 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 17, 1996

immunity." … as amplifying who is barred by charitable immunity, that is, beneficiaries and who is not, that is, nonbeneficiaries; we do not construe it as enlarging the category of those qualifying as beneficiaries to include persons

Duke Power Co. v. Patten

20 N.J. 42 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 21, 1955

The fact that someone contends for a meaning different from that clearly expressed does not make the construction of a law unsettled. … Rather the rule is that a litigant may bring an action in lieu of the prerogative writ based upon the premise that he can establish that the ministerial duty to be performed by the officer is set forth in language so clear

Massachi v. AHL Services, Inc.

396 N.J. Super. 486 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 2007

The trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference. Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Twp. … Consequently, even if a provision of the Act establishes liability, a corresponding provision of the Act may immunize the public entity from liability. Malloy, supra, 76 N.J. at 521 , 388 A. 2d 622 .

Mitchell v. City of Trenton

163 N.J. Super. 287 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 1978

Plaintiffs presented proofs at trial before the jury which established that Mrs. Mitchell fell at the curb, within the lines of the crosswalk. Mrs. … The substance of his testimony clearly supported the conditions for immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(d).

Mattern v. City of Sea Isle

131 F. Supp. 3d 305 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 15, 2015

The Supreme Court recently reversed on qualified immunity grounds, holding that there was no clearly established constitutional right to adequate protocols ,to evaluate prisoners' mental health for suicide prevention. … Mattem during the few hours of his detention violated any clearly - established right.

Kollar v. Lozier

286 N.J. Super. 462 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 17, 1996

Clearly, Kollar posed a threat not only to himself but also to others. We do not read General Order 83-3 to prohibit a pursuit in this situation. … However, in this case its employees, Lozier and Dawson, are immune from liability pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:5-2b(2) and the Borough is entitled to the same immunity.

Rivkin v. Dover Township Rent Leveling Board

143 N.J. 352 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 29, 1996

After rehearing the matter, the Board awarded plaintiffs an additional *379 $25,089.67 in qualifying capital improvements. … or absolute immunity for the Board members.

Koplik v. C. P. Trucking Corp.

27 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 5, 1958

The language clearly maintains the interspousal disability. Under the interdiction a wife cannot sue her husband in this sort of case. … The policy issue is clear and if a legislature wishes to abrogate the immunity, it ought to say so clearly and unequivocally. Such was the view of the United States Supreme Court in Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U.

CJ v. Vuinovich

252 N.J. Super. 122 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 22, 1991

United States, 663 F. 2d 1226 (3d Cir. 1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 972 , 102 S.Ct. 2234 , 72 L.Ed. 2d 845 (1982), which held that the established doctrine of military immunity precluded state causes of action … Will , therefore, "establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court." Howlett v.