Case law

Tryanowski v. Lodi Bd. of Educ.

274 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1994

Dev., 55 N.J. 534 , 264 A. 2d 34 (1970), in which the Supreme Court abrogated the doctrine of sovereign immunity to tort claims, and thus the Act's purpose was to re-establish immunity for all public entities in New Jersey … Ventron, supra, is clearly distinguishable from the present case.

M.A. v. J.H.M.

Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 27, 2025

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” … United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951), and to require him to answer if “it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.” Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 899 (1881).

D'Annunzio v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

192 N.J. 110 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 25, 2007

When, as here, the language is plain and clearly reveals the meaning of the statute, the court’s sole function is to enforce the statute in accordance with those terms. … This matter was presented to the trial court on Prudential’s motion for summary judgment on the sole issue of whether D’Annunzio qualified as an "employee" under CEPA.

Weber v. United States

991 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 26, 1998

. §§ 2671-2680 , grants a limited, qualified waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity. … The fact that the municipality was not maintaining the playground for profit and there was no fee charged for the use of the playground was not enough to establish that the playground was operated for a “philanthropic purpose

Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. Stults

146 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 7, 1956

Some tests are well established. … The present action fails to meet this well-established test of jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss the action will be granted for the reasons herein stated.

Kleinke v. City of Ocean City

163 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 1978

A. 59:4-1 et seq. is that plaintiff establish that the property upon which his injury occurred was in a “dangerous condition” at the time of the injury. … A. 59:4r-8 would not grant immunity.

IPPOLITO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2026

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts ‘showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged

Diane Voynick v. Brian Voynick

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2025

An anti-Lepis clause [contractually] limits the factual situations qualifying as a change in circumstances sufficient to modify an alimony obligation. See Quinn v. … Defendant provided no evidence, expert or otherwise, delineating his immune and non-immune assets or the income stream from those non-immune assets.

Neigel v. Seaboard Finance Co.

68 N.J. Super. 542 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 1961

Privilege may be absolute or qualified. … We hold that the letter mailed to plaintiff's employer by the defendants does not, in itself, establish a qualified privilege. *552 II.

In re Wheeler

433 N.J. Super. 560 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 30, 2013

Pursuant to N.J.S.A 2C:58-4d, a *580 carry permit may be tailored to the need established by the applicant. … Privileges and Immunities The applicants also contend that subsection l of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.

Dunn v. County of Morris

298 N.J. Super. 212 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 1997

Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 170 N.J.Super. 153 , 406 A.2d 170 (App.Div.1979), where the issue was whether a county park commission police officer’s prior service qualified as county employment service. … The judge continued: But nevertheless, the statutes clearly indicate ... there’s some functioning that the Park Commission has that establishes it as something different than some of the other agencies of the County, but

United States v. Maas

551 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 1, 1982

Bell, 488 F.Supp. 123 (D.D.C.1980): Smoking marijuana does not qualify as a fundamental right, Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 502 (Alaska 1975) (dictum). … However, the court finds that the evidence does not clearly demonstrate that the use of marijuana is harmless.

JOHN TIMMINS, ETC. VS. ROBERT B. BOYLE (L-1092-18, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2021

clearly established. … "Thus, '[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.'" Ibid.

SAINT-JEAN v. HOLLAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 28, 2020

violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”). … (It also rejected the officer’s assertion of qualified immunity, finding that he had violated a clearly established right. See Section III.C.1.b, infra.)

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ivax Corp.

77 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 4, 2000

That case established that enforcement of a patent procured by fraud upon the Patent and Trademark Office may violate the Sherman Act. 382 U.S. 172 , 86 S.Ct. 347 , 15 L.Ed.2d 247 . … Describing the scope of Parker immunity, the Court wrote: “We reiterate that, with the possible market participant exception, any action that qualifies as state action is ‘ipso facto ... exempt from the operation of the antitrust

Seiderman v. American Institute for Mental Studies

667 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 14, 1987

Based on the record before us, for the reasons set forth above, we find that defendants have carried their burden of establishing that they are covered by N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7, and that plaintiffs have failed to produce any … The New Jersey statute at issue in Prince , N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8, qualifies the broad grant of immunity to charitable nonprofit corporations contained in NJ.S.A. 2A:53A-7 and provides that nonprofit corporations organized exclusively

ALEXANDER

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 4, 2026

an arresting officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. 146 S. … Thus, the arresting officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 931.

Visidor Corp. v. Borough of Cliffside Park

48 N.J. 214 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 21, 1966

Although the Borough’s action was declared to have been procedurally illegal, the establishment of one-way streets was admittedly within the proper province of the Borough and the procedural requirement for a duly approved … ordinance was clearly designed not for the protection of economic business interests but to advance the interests of safety and uniformity in traffic regulation.

Franco v. Davis

112 N.J. Super. 496 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 1970

Transport Corp., 56 N.J. 500 (1970), which abolished the doctrine of child-parent immunity. … The latter case, however, clearly presented a change of factual situation in a child support case and did not contemplate a change in decisional law.

Hauser v. YMCA

91 N.J. Super. 172 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 21, 1966

The use to be administered is public and charitable, but the organization and management are private." *176 Clearly, this pronouncement by our Supreme Court makes it conclusive that defendant comes within the purview of the … It is significant that in so deciding the court found no problem resulting from the fact that plaintiff was temporarily residing in the defendant's establishment, or that she was making payment for such *178 residency.