Jerolamon v. Fairleigh Dickinson University

5 Citing cases

  1. Park v. Tsiavos

    No. 16-1532 (3d Cir. Feb. 9, 2017)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing factors relevant to domicile determination

    Park relies on several pre-Bieker cases where New Jersey's intermediate appellate court denied charitable immunity. See, e.g., Jerolamon v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 488 A.2d 1064 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985); Book v. Aguth Achim Anchai of Freehold, 245 A.2d 51 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1968). These cases are distinguishable because they involved for-profit activities, not benefactions.

  2. Lutz v. Royal Ins. Co. of America

    245 N.J. Super. 480 (App. Div. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Holding under New Jersey law that a report made to a supervisor regarding a fellow employee's alleged sexual harassment was conditionally privileged

    Ill will or bad faith "is demonstrated where one prepares false and fabricated reports knowing that they are such." Jerolamon v. Fairleigh Dickinson University, 199 N.J. Super. 179, 185, 488 A.2d 1064 (App.Div. 1985). Plaintiff disputes the truth and accuracy of the defamatory statements made by Poe who, unlike Cary and Buckleman, spoke from first-hand knowledge of plaintiff's conduct and statements.

  3. Seiderman v. Am. Inst. for Mental Studies

    667 F. Supp. 154 (D.N.J. 1987)   Cited 14 times
    In Seiderman, plaintiff brought an action as guardian for his son, a mentally handicapped patient, for injuries the son sustained when he fell from a window while residing at the American Institute for Mental Studies ("AIMS") located in New Jersey and managed by Elwyn.

    The Supreme Court pointed out that in construing the scope of the charitable immunity statute, a court must attempt to divine the Legislature's intent from the common law doctrines that existed at the time the statute was enacted. See also Jerolamon v. Fairleigh Dickinson University, 199 N.J. Super. 179, 182, 488 A.2d 1064 (App.Div. 1985) ("It was not the intent of the Legislature to change the preexisting immunity but merely to preserve it as it had previously existed.") As the starting point for our analysis, we note that "New Jersey has long recognized the distinction between willful and wanton conduct on the one hand and mere negligence on the other."

  4. Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale

    413 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 2010)   Cited 24 times
    Explaining that "[w]hile there was no actual showing of loss of reputation, it was sufficient to defeat defendant's motion to dismiss to have simply alleged such damage."

    Although the statutory procedure detailed in paragraph (b) is specific to requests by criminal defendants, In re Schuman, 114 N.J. 14, 27, 552 A.2d 602 (1989), we discern no reason not to apply the more traditional rules embodied in paragraphs (a) and (c) to determine the applicability of the evidentiary privilege in a civil context. Where the existence of a privilege is subject to a condition, the issue is to be determined by the judge, N.J.R.E. 104(a); In re Madden, 151 F.3d 125, 127-28 (3d Cir. 1998), and where there are contested issues of material fact as to the existence of the conditions precedent to assertion of the privilege, there should be a full preliminary hearing to decide whether all the requirements of the Shield Law have been met. N.J.R.E. 104(a); Jerolamon v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 199 N.J.Super. 179, 185, 488 A.2d 1064 (App.Div. 1985); Devlin v. Greiner, 147 N.J.Super. 446, 460, 371 A.2d 380 (Law Div. 1977). Cf. R. 1:6-6; Conforti v. Guliadis, 245 N.J.Super. 561, 565, 586 A.2d 318 (App.Div. 1991), modified, 128 N.J. 318, 608 A.2d 225 (1992).

  5. Hamel v. State

    321 N.J. Super. 67 (App. Div. 1999)   Cited 37 times
    Relying on Winters to find that a school board is not a non-profit

    In 1958, the Legislature responded to a trilogy of decisions by our Supreme Court effectively abolishing the common-law immunity offered charitable institutions by enacting N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 to -11. See Schultz v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese, 95 N.J. 530, 533, 472 A.2d 531 (1984); Jerolamon v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 199 N.J. Super. 179, 182, 488 A.2d 1064 (App.Div. 1985). During the Assembly Judiciary Committee hearings on the Assembly Substitute for Senate Bill No. S-204 conducted on July 17, 1958, the Committee investigated whether insurance rates for charitable organizations would rise in the absence of a charitable immunity statute.