Case law

Ryan v. Burlington County, NJ

708 F. Supp. 623 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 1989

Qualified Immunity The defense of qualified immunity serves to insulate a governmental official from liability in civil damages when the discretionary conduct of that official “does not violate clearly established statutory … In determining whether caselaw evidenced a clearly established right, courts are to examine the state of the law as of the time of the challenged conduct rather than the time at which the qualified immunity defense is raised

Denise Brown v. State of New Jersey (076656) (Cumberland County and Statewide)

230 N.J. 84 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2017

In this matter, defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity in connection with their motion for summary judgment, arguing that McArthur applied and provided “the only clearly established, constitutional standard” … established at the time of his conduct, we conclude that Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity.

Calloway v. Fauver

544 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 1982

This was not a clearly established constitutional right during the periods relevant to this case. … Robinson, supra, can be said to create clearly established constitutional rights which would strip defendants of their qualified immunity.

Skevofilax v. Quigley

586 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 1984

clearly established. … Montgomery County, 573 F.Supp. 604, 610 (D.Md.1983) (law re: strip searching of pretrial detainees was not clearly established prior to Fourth Circuit decision, was clearly established after that decision; qualified immunity

Schneider v. Simonini

163 N.J. 336 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 6, 2000

L.Rev. 1045, 1045 n. 1 (1990) (Brands, Qualified Immunity). One of the elements of qualified immunity, originally established in Wood v. … The standard for qualified immunity established in Harlow is whether an executive official, such as a police officer, violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

MICHAEL DOLINSKI v. BOROUGH OF WATCHUNG (L-1080-19, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2022

Plaintiff argues the motion judge erred in granting defendant Cina qualified immunity. Citing Morillo v. … State, 230 N.J. 84, 98 (2017) (holding a governmental official is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is established that a clearly established constitutional right was violated).

JACKMON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 4, 2025

Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because no law clearly established that designating NOGE a STG violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. (See id.) … There is a two-step inquiry into whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was clearly established.

Brayshaw v. Gelber

232 N.J. Super. 99 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 1989

We acknowledged that this qualified immunity was subject to N.J.S.A. 59:3-14a as are all Tort Claims Act immunities. … therefore, she was entitled to a qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3.

Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey

162 N.J. 375 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 2000

The Court, concluding that an officer applying for a warrant is entitled to assert qualified but not absolute immunity, observed that the defense of qualified immunity provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent … Qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” that is effectively lost if the case is allowed to go to trial. Mitchell v.

THE ESTATE OF RICHARD BARD v. THE CITY OF VINELAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 22, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … New Jersey State Police, 957 F.3d 165, 171–74 (3d Cir. 2020) (assessing the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis and reversing district court’s denial of

Sykes v. Rutgers

308 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1998

We need not grapple with this issue because we have concluded that regardless of Rutgers’ entitlement to Tort Claims Act immunity, it is clearly entitled to the common law immunity established in Miehl v. … In the absence of a clearly established landlord-tenant relationship, our courts have previously rejected attempts by slip and fall plaintiffs to classify a particular public entity as akin to a commercial landlord in order

STILE v. HOLLINGSWORTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2021

assuming Plaintiff’s allegations to be true and determining whether the claim was supported by clearly established law. … Ed. 2d 463 (2017) (explaining that clearly established law, for purposes of qualified immunity, must make apparent the unlawfulness of the conduct that violates the Constitution).

Fuchilla v. Prockop

682 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 1987

If the law prohibiting the official act was clearly established then “a reasonably competent public official” should have known of it and the qualified immunity defense “should ordinarily fail” unless the official claims … If, however, the law was not clearly established, the defendant will be immune unless the plaintiff can show that the defendant actually knew that he was violating the law.

BARGE v. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2025

Stated more generally: once the defendants have started things off by raising qualified immunity, who has to come forward and show what the “clearly established” law actually is? … If he does not come forward with sufficiently on-point indications that the relevant law is “clearly established,” then the defendant gets qualified immunity. See Davis v.

ORTIZ v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY FREEHOLDERS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2024

Yost, 63 F.4th 211, 228 (3d Cir. 2023) (a § 1983 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity if the right at issue was not clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated) (citation omitted). … Broad general propositions in precedential cases, without sufficient factual context, do not clearly establish a constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity. Id. (citing Mullenix v.

Black v. Borough of Atlantic Highlands

263 N.J. Super. 445 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 1993

Even if the Borough had not created the Shade Tree Commission, but had dealt directly with Aymonier, retention of a private contractor and reliance upon his services would clearly be a policy decision. … To ordinary landowners unprotected by statutory immunities, liability in tort to adjoining property owners may be established for damages proximately flowing from dangerous conditions caused by overhanging branches or matter

John M. Gately and Patty Sue Gately v. Hamilton

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 22, 2015

The father and his current wife, as co-plaintiffs, argue that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendants' conduct is subject to protection under qualified statutory immunities … immunity.

Parker v. St. Stephen's Urban Dev.

243 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 24, 1990

That total figure is *321 prorated among the apartments to establish the "basic rent" for each unit. … Defendant clearly falls outside the scope of this definition. No benefactor whose charitable contributions require protection exists in this case.

SCANLON v. LAWSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2020

Thus, Plaintiff has not established a constitutional violation for failure to protect and the Court need not proceed to the qualified immunity analysis. … Therefore, even if deliberate indifference could be established on this record, Defendants Balicki and Surrency, in their individual capacities, would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Department of Environmental Protection v. Franklin Tp.

3 N.J. Tax 105 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 4, 1981

, it would have clearly so stated. … Washington Tp., both supra, establish that property acquired by a state agency otherwise entitled to an exemption from taxation is not immune from the imposition of rollback taxes once a change in use has occurred.