Case law

2175 Lemoine Ave. v. Finco, Inc.

272 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 26, 1994

Merely establishing a contract between parties to a real estate transaction by an unlicensed person violates the statute. Corson v. Keane, supra [, 4 N.J. 221 [ 72 A. 2d 314 ] (1950)]. … On the other hand, he is not immune from the responsibility, if he fails to employ in the work he undertakes that reasonable knowledge and skill exercised by lawyers of ordinary ability and skill.

Toto v. Sheriff's Officer Ensuar

196 N.J. 134 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 4, 2008

of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Sovereign Immunity, 216-17 (1972)) (alteration in original). … The failure to instruct the jury that the good faith defense did not apply to plaintiffs claim for false arrest/false imprisonment was clearly erroneous.

LANIADO v. COUNTY OF OCEAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2019

“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 person … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

State v. James

96 N.J.L. 132 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 20, 1921

This is not a declaratory, but a remedial, statute, and clearly indicates that women had to be qualified by legislative enactment in order to be summoned, and to serve, oil juries in this state. … Upon this whole matter we are clearly of opinion that the judgment under review should be affirmed.

Olesiewicz v. City of Camden

100 N.J.L. 336 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1924

“After careful consideration, my conclusion is that the general rule established by the line of cases referred to is not applicable to the facts present in this instance, and that whenever an indictment will not lie for such … The facts of the instant case fall clearly within the application of the principle, as expressed, in the two cases above referred to.

1711 Third Avenue, Inc. v. City of Asbury Park

16 N.J. Tax 174 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 16, 1996

On the other hand, there is sufficient other evidence in the record to establish that the residents are mentally ill. … Quite clearly, the subject property could not qualify under section 811 unless it housed persons with the described disabilities, and chronic mental illness is a specifically included type of disability. *180 The fact that

State v. Tamburro

68 N.J. 414 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 21, 1975

The trial court found him to be eminently qualified in this field. Dr. … However, participation in such a program does not immunize a person from application of the statute.

McCarthy v. Ehrens

212 N.J. Super. 249 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 1986

The fireman's rule was first established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Krauth v. Geller, 31 N.J. 270 (1960). … Therefore, this court cannot create an exception to a rule established by the Supreme Court.

State v. Greely

30 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 25, 1954

It will be hereinafter shown, and I think by the clearly established law of this State, that the omission of an express count for robbery was of no consequence, that robbery was inherently in the case, and that notwithstanding … The immunity is not ordained to achieve a uniformity of moral perfection in its results. Its operation is not contingent upon a relation to happy circumstance.

Ab v. Div. of Medical Assistance and Health Services

407 N.J. Super. 330 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 2009

For our purposes, that definition clearly establishes two classes of aliens, both of them LPRs. … are clearly not.

Interstate Wrecking Co. v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission

103 N.J. Super. 394 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 1968

It has long been established that a state instrumentality does have governmental immunity unless waived by the Legislature. Breen v. Mortgage Commission of State of New York, 285 N. Y. 425 , 35 N. E. 2d 25 (Ct. … This court concludes that the aforementioned immunity, as the result of the language cited, was clearly waived by legislative authority in authorizing the compact, and it appears to be the only construction as a matter of

Tice v. Cramer

254 N.J. Super. 641 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1992

In any case, the judge found there was "no suggestion by anyone that Patrolman Cramer either initiated pursuit or continued it in bad faith." *646 The Law Division judge concluded that N.J.S.A. 59:5-2(b) established immunity … While the wording of Roll generally does speak in terms of the absence of any tort duty in the circumstance, the policy of immunity for this type of police conduct was clearly the thrust of the opinion.

Mallory v. Mallory

179 N.J. Super. 556 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 1981

At such time as the taxpayer qualifies and elects to receive distribution from his account, the expected benefit derived will be the payment of taxes at a lower rate on the sums so received. *559 The Congress, in establishing … To protect the participants and their beneficiaries from the adverse claims of creditors was clearly one of Congress' stated intents. ERISA § 2(c), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 (c).

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.

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

563 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 1, 2008

The Court is guided by the Court of Appeals’ most recent consideration of this case: We have clearly stated that the determination of whether a person was a “qualified individual with a disability” for the purposes of an … , because “[ajfter-acquired evidence, simply put, is not relevant in establishing liability.”

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.

State in Interest of DH

153 N.J. Super. 490 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 1977

Satisfied by Fidelity's showing that it could not reasonably ascertain the juveniles' identity by way of customary investigatory procedures, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judge entered an order affording Fidelity qualified … applying this "delicate" balancing here, we would in any event have concluded that the policy of confidentiality would not have been unwarrantedly impinged upon where the effect of non-intrusion would be the fortuitous immunization

Stigliano v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc.

140 N.J. 305 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 31, 1995

Plaintiffs also contend that defendants must qualify the treating doctors as experts before the doctors may testify about causation. … This testimony was clearly relevant and material. To bar- such testimony of the initial treating physicians would only serve to hinder the search for truth. [Id. at 592, 630 A.2d 355 .]

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

CLAY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 14, 2026

immunity grounds because his conduct was objectively reasonable and he did not violate any clearly established right. … Plaintiffs respond that Officer Love is not entitled to qualified immunity because whether Officer Love’s actions were objectively reasonable must be decided by a jury, and Officer Love violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established