N.J. Stat. » Title 59 — CLAIMS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 59:8-3 (2026)

Claims for damages against public entities; inapplicability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

59:8-3. Claims for damages against public entities. a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no action shall be brought against a public entity or public employee under this act unless the claim upon which it is based shall have been presented in accordance with the procedure set forth in this chapter.

b. The procedural requirements of this chapter shall not apply to an action at law for an injury resulting from the commission of sexual assault, any other crime of a sexual nature, a prohibited sexual act as defined in section 2 of P.L.1992, c.7 (C.2A:30B-2), or sexual abuse as defined in section 1 of P.L.1992, c.109 (C.2A:61B-1).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 125 cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Rolax v. Whitman, 175 F. Supp. 2d 720 (D.N.J. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rolax v. Whitman, 175 F. Supp. 2d 720 (D.N.J. 2001). · cites it 6× “12(b)(6), claiming that Plaintiffs Complaint is time-barred by the relevant statutes of limitations and by Plaintiffs failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. § 59:8-3. This time bar exists, Defendants assert, even if…”
Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiming, 543 A.2d 443 (N.J. 1988). · cites it 4× “A claimant will be permanently barred from recovering against a public entity if (1) he or she fails to file claim with the public entity within ninety days of accrual of the claim and is not entitled to file a late notice of claim under § 59:8-9; (2) two years have elapsed…”
Lassoff v. New Jersey, 414 F. Supp. 2d 483 (D.N.J. 2006). · cites it 4× “See N.J.S.A. § 59:8-3. Thus, before a claimant may file suit against a public entity or its employees, he must comply with the TCA’s notice of claim provision.”
Noble v. City of Camden, 112 F. Supp. 3d 208 (D.N.J. 2015). · cites it 2× “See N.J.S.A. 59:8-3 (“No action shall be brought against a public entity or public employee under this act unless the claim upon which it is based shall have been presented in accordance with the procedure set forth in this chapter.”
Geissler v. City of Atl. City, 198 F. Supp. 3d 389 (D.N.J. 2016). · cites it 2× “See N.J.S.A. § 59:8-3. The Act requires notice of a claim of injury against a public entity to be presented within ninety days of the accrual of the cause of action.”
Est. of Martin v. United States Marshals Serv. Agents, 649 F. App'x 239 (3d Cir. 2016). “See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:8-3 . The notice must include the following: a.”
Rolax v. Whitman, 53 F. App'x 635 (3d Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “Appellant Sherron Rolax argues on appeal that the District Court erred by concluding that the first five counts of his complaint were time-barred and that his sixth claim was barred by the requirements of the New Jersey Torts Claims Act, N.J.S.A. § 59:8-3. We will affirm. On…”
Ingram v. Twp. of Deptford, 858 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.N.J. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 59:8-3 (“No action shall be brought against a public entity or public employee under this act unless the claim upon which it is based shall have been presented in accordance with the procedure set forth in this chapter.”). It is undisputed that the Defendants are public…”
Morales v. Busbee, 972 F. Supp. 254 (D.N.J. 1997). · cites it 2× “See N.J.S.A. § 59:8-3 (barring claims against public employees where proper notice of claim is not given, but applying only to claims that accrued after June 23, 1994).”
Ginamarie Gomes v. the Cnty. of Monmouth & Correct, 134 A.3d 33 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016). “] The first two goals are derived from the Task Force Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:8-3, and the last two goals come from Fuller v.”
Lowe v. Zarghami, 731 A.2d 14 (N.J. 1999). “The amendment also made the notice requirements under N.J.S.A. 59:8-3 applicable to both public entities and public employees.”
Tripo v. Robert Wood Johnson Med. Ctr., 845 F. Supp. 2d 621 (D.N.J. 2012). · cites it 2× “” N.J.S.A. § 59:8-3. The purpose of the Act is to “reestablish the immunity of public entities while coherently ameliorating the harsh results of the [sovereign immunity] doctrine.”
Show all 125 citing cases →
N.J. Stat. § 59:8-3(a): 8 cases
Reyes-marcelino v. The Borough of Paramus (D.N.J. 2022).
Roberts v. City of Newark (D.N.J. 2025).
Jonathan Jeffrey Vs. State of New Jersey (l-1007-18, Union Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
H.C. Equities, LP v. Cnty. of Union (084556) (Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide), 247 N.J. 366 (N.J. 2021).
R.A. Vs. West Essex Reg'l Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. (l-8607-18 & L-4811-19, Essex Cnty. & Statewide) (Consol.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
N.J. Stat. § 59:8-3(b): 9 cases
R.A. Vs. West Essex Reg'l Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. (l-8607-18 & L-4811-19, Essex Cnty. & Statewide) (Consol.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
W.S. Vs. Derek Hildreth (l-0043-20, Gloucester Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
J.H. v. Warren Hills Bd. of Educ. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).
Edmond (D.N.J. 2026).
E.C. Vs. Leo Inglima-donaldson (l-1419-18, Essex Cnty. & Statewide) (record Impounded) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.