Case law

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

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.

State v. Irizarry

271 N.J. Super. 577 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 1, 1994

The prosecution has the burden of establishing that its evidence is not tainted by information derived from immunized testimony. … The affidavits of record indicate that defendant was told before he was granted immunity that he would not be given any consideration (except for the establishment of a possible mitigating factor) in exchange for his testimony

Kaufman v. the Trust Co. of N.J.

130 N.J. Eq. 346 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 20, 1941

Goldman renounced and letters testamentary were issued to Blohm who qualified and took possession of the entire estate. … The immunity of a bank under like circumstances has been established by a long line of decisions and the pronouncements of leading authorities some of which are cited below. Central National Bank of Baltimore v.

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

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.

THOMPSON v. TELL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 24, 2023

As an affirmative defense, the burden of establishing qualified immunity falls on to the official claiming it. , 642 F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011). … clearly established when the conduct took place. , 905 F.3d at 716.

Fuchilla v. Layman

210 N.J. Super. 574 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 1986

Defendants contend that neither the University nor its Board of Trustees qualifies as a "person" within the meaning of § 1983 which by its terms only forbids denial of a citizen's civil rights by any "person." … beyond the immunities of the Tort Claims Act.

MANATA v. UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 2025

Thus, qualified immunity will shield a government official from suit unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) a violation of a right that is (2) clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … However, an allegedly retaliatory investigation is not a “clearly established” First Amendment violation for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity. See Sivella v.

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.

United States v. Pelullo

917 F. Supp. 1065 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 1995

The government argues that even if it is established that Corona’s immunized testimony and information is used against him, such use is harmless. … A Kastigar hearing might well establish that during his interview with Special Agent Wood and AUSA O’Malley, Special Agent Ruffino received'and later used other immunized information.

JOHNSON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 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 … For qualified-immunity purposes, “clearly established rights are derived either from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts

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.

Devins v. Borough of Bogota

124 N.J. 570 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 10, 1991

A second reason was that the king established his own rules for litigation, see Note, State’s Immunity to the Statute of Limitations, 38 Ill.L.Rev. 418, 419 (1944) (describing and criticizing nullum tempus). … Commissioner, Dep’t of Transp., 55 N.J. 341 , 262 A.2d 195 (1970) (abolishing sovereign immunity in contract); N.J.S.A. 59:13-1 to 13-10, first the courts and then the Legislature have reconsidered sovereign immunity, with

<font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font> TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN - NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-2301

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 12, 2023

In opposition, the State Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the actions at issue were reasonable and violated no clearly established law. (State Opp’n at 12.) … a right for purposes of qualified immunity.’”

SOUTH v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 28, 2023

Qualified immunity protects officials who violate a plaintiff’s federally protected right, so long as the right was not clearly established by law. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Qualified immunity has been defined as a “fair warning” standard by the Supreme Court, meaning that if the federal right is clearly established, the official is sufficiently on notice and may be held monetarily liable.

McDonough v. Jorda

214 N.J. Super. 338 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 28, 1986

That municipal immunity existed here is open to no cavil when one reads N.J.S.A. 59:2-1 and the comment which follows it from the Report of the Attorney General's Task Force on Sovereign Immunity (1972). … Any liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity.... [Emphasis supplied].

Cospito v. Califano

89 F.R.D. 374 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 5, 1981

,” no due-process rights are triggered because the patients are free to transfer to a qualified facility. … It is a well-established principle that private action, as distinguished from federal action, is immune from the due-process restrictions of the Fifth Amendment. See Jackson v.

Eger v. E.I. Du Pont DeNemours Co.

110 N.J. 133 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 20, 1988

The courts clearly consider that this system of mutual give and take would be upset if the employee could sue for negligence in another jurisdiction. [Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Mather, 210 F.2d 868, 873-74 (D.C.Cir.) … His or her right to compensation does not depend on the inherently uncertain process of establishing tort liability.

In Re Raphael

238 B.R. 69 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

The Perez Court concluded: ... it is clear to this Court that the DMV is a ‘real party-in-interest’ in this case and clearly entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, since a ruling herein concerning restoration of Debt- or … The Third Circuit stated that the James District Court clearly questioned the merits of the state court proceedings. Id. at 52.