On this date in 1986, the Supreme Court decided Hills Dev. Co v. Bernards Tp., 103 N.J. 1 (1986).  At the time, it was one of the Court’s most important decisions, both in terms of land use law and in regard to the politics that accompanied (and continues to accompany) low and moderate-income housing and the constitutionally-based Mount Laurel doctrine.  read more

American Dream at Marlboro, LLC v. Marlboro Tp. Planning Bd., ___ N.J. ___ (2012).  This per curiam opinion addresses the issue of when a deed restriction imposed by a planning board can be eliminated.  The parties agreed that planning boards lack the power to do that, citing Soussa v. Denville Planning Bd., 238 N.J. Super. 66, 69 (App. Div. 1990).  The parties also agreed that the courts have equitable power to modify or terminate such a restriction, citing Citizens Voices Ass’n v. Collings Lakes Civic Ass’n, 392 N.J. Super. 432, 446 (App. Div. 1997).  The issue, then, was “the standards that the trial court must apply when considering an application to eliminate a deed restriction based on changed circumstances and the manner in which the proofs should be evaluated.” read more

New Jersey Dental Ass’n v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2012).  Many cases have rightly held that, under New Jersey’s liberal standing rules, organizations have standing to sue on behalf of their members.  This opinion, written by Judge Grall, joins that list of cases.  The panel was also willing to reach the merits of the challenge by appellant New Jersey Dental Association (“NJDA”) to an administrative regulation even though NJDA  did not follow the correct procedure to perfect its appeal.  Ultimately, however, NJDA lost on the merits. read more

In re Petition for Referendum to Repeal Ordinance 2010-27 of Margate City, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2012).  The Home Rule Act, N.J.S.A. 40:49-27, establishes the right to a public referendum regarding any ordinance that authorizes the incurring of an indebtedness.  The question in this case, in which Judge Skillman wrote the opinion, was whether that right applies to a municipality organized under the Walsh Act, N.J.S.A. 40:70-1 et seq., since there is differing or potentially even contradictory language in the two statutes.  Judge Skilman concluded that the referendum right afforded by the Home Rule Act does apply in Walsh Act municipalities, reversing a Law Division decision that was reached on cross-motions for summary judgment on this pure issue of law. read more

In re Application of Xiangjing Zhan, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2012).  A permanent resident alien sought to invoke New Jersey’s name change statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:52-1 to -4, to change his minor daughter’s first name to “Michelle.”  A Law Division judge denied that request because the daughter was not a United States citizen.  The judge distinguished a prior case, Application of Pirlamarla, 208 N.J. Super. 112 (Law Div. 1985), which had applied the name change statute to permanent resident aliens, on the grounds that Pirlamarla was a “pre-9/11″ case.  The Appellate Division reversed and held that the benefits of the name change statute are not limited to United States citizens.  Judge Reisner wrote the panel’s opinion. read more

Today, February 13, 2012, New Jersey’s state courts are closed in observance of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln exactly 203 years ago yesterday.  Leaving aside a Supreme Court of New Jersey dissent and a few trial court opinions, New Jersey courts have not frequently had occasion to quote the 16th President.  One of the only appellate decisions to do so, according to a Westlaw search, was Ladenheim v. Klein, 330 N.J. Super. 219 (App. Div. 2000). read more

The same ill-conceived legislation to allow immediate appeals of all decisions on class certification that was introduced in the Assembly last year has been reintroduced this year by the same sponsors and one new co-sponsor.  The bill is designated as A894.  The bill is no less unconstitutional and unwise now than it was before, as explained here.  It did not advance last year and should not move ahead now either. read more

Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, LLC, ___ N.J. ___ (2012).  Plaintiff was a police officer whose duties in a “Safe Streets” program included checking vacant apartment buildings for drugs or other illicit activity.  Plaintiff was going down a flight of stairs to ensure that a basement door to the building was secured when cement that covered the stairs broke, causing plaintiff to fall and sustain serious injury.  Plaintiff had been at the building before, and defendants, the owners, knew that a police officer had previously come to check on the basement door.  Plaintiff sued for his injuries, but the Law Division and Appellate Division granted summary judgment to defendant, on the grounds that defendants could not have foreseen that plaintiff would be there, that the defect in the stairs was obvious, and that plaintiff knew the stairs were dangerous.   The Supreme Court granted certification and reversed in a unanimous opinion by Justice Long. read more