G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 971 A.2d 401 (N.J. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 971 A.2d 401 (N.J. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2016–2026 · …the judicial function operates best when a concrete dispute is presented to the courts. ✓
44 citation events (44 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: L.A. v. E.K. (njsuperctappdiv, 2026-03-09)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) L.A. v. E.K.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2026 · confidence medium
G.H. v. Township of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Matters of Watchung Hills Regional High School District Board of Education
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (disfavoring advisory opinions by courts).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection v. Alsol Corporation
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (declining to consider hypothetical questions because courts "cannot answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions"); Indep.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NJ Citizen Action v. State of New Jersey
N.J. Tax Ct. · 2022 · confidence medium
G.H. v. Twp. of ADA Americans with Disabi liti es Act ENSURING AN OPEN DOOR TO JUSTICE rm P a g e | 10 Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (declining to provide guidance on the limits of Megan’s law or advice in this regard since courts “cannot answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions. . . .
cited Cited as authority (rule) FARRUGGIO'S BRISTOL, ETC. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) (CONSOLIDATED)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) J.A. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (declining to consider hypothetical questions because courts "cannot answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions"); Indep.
cited Cited as authority (rule) DCPP VS. T.U.B. AND J.E.C.IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF C.I.B. (FG-07-164-14, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009).
discussed Cited "see" Noah Tenenbaum v. Allstate Insurance Company
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (citing Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Eq.
cited Cited "see" In the Matter of the Commitment of K.W.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009).
discussed Cited "see" STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVID GHIGLIOTTY (17-02-0154, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (noting that courts generally should not "answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions").
discussed Cited "see" State in the Interest of J.F.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (declining to reach questions of limits to statutory preemption of municipal action in a challenge to the viability of existing ordinances).
discussed Cited "see" State v. J.M., Jr.(075317) (2×)
N.J. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 , 971 A.2d 401 (2009) (declining to reach question of limits of statutory preemption of municipal action in context of challenge to viability of existing ordinances).
discussed Cited "see" New Jersey Ass'n of School Administrators v. Schundler (2×)
N.J. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 , 971 A.2d 401 (2009) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ippolito Corporation v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp., 58 N.J. 98 , 107 (1971); see also G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (declining to address hypothetical questions about un-enacted ordinances or to provide advisory opinions); State v. Ghigliotty, 463 N.J.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." SAL ELECTRIC CO., INC. VS. PLAINFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-3244-19, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See De Vesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428 (1993); Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 108 (1971); see also G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (instructing that courts should not "answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." SAL ELECTRIC CO., INC. VS. PLAINFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-3244-19, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See De Vesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428 (1993); Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 108 (1971); see also G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (instructing that courts should not "answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions").
cited Cited "see, e.g." ESSEX COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICERS PBA LOCAL 183 VS. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (STATE HEALTH BENEFITS COMMISSION)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) A-1228-17T2 27 (instructing that courts should not "answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions.").
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re N.J.A.C. (2×)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence low
See De Vesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428 , 634 A.2d 493 (1993) (noting that our courts refrain from rendering advisory opinions or exercising jurisdiction “in the abstract”); see also G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 , 971 A.2d 401 (2009) (instructing that courts should not “answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions”); Crescent Park Tenants Ass’n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 108 , 275 A.2d 433 (1971) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See De Vesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428 (1993) (noting that our courts refrain from rendering advisory opinions or exercising jurisdiction "in the abstract"); see also G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (instructing that courts should not "answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions"); Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 108 (1971) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See De Vesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428 (1993) (noting that our courts refrain from rendering advisory opinions or exercising jurisdiction "in the abstract"); see also G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136 (2009) (instructing that courts should not "answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions"); Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 108 (1971) (same).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
G.H., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Township of Galloway, Defendant-Appellant; Township of Cherry Hill, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James Barclay and Jeffrey Finguerra, Defendants-Respondents
A-64/65 September Term 2008.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
May 7, 2009.
971 A.2d 401
2009 N.J. LEXIS 259
William F. Cook, argued the cause for appellant Township of Cherry Hill (Brown & Connery, attorneys; Mr. Cook, William M. Tambussi and Abigail M. Green, on the briefs)., Demetrios K. Stratis, argued the cause for appellant Township of Galloway (Mr. Stratis and Stuart J. Roth, a member of the District of Columbia bar, attorneys)., Frank L. Corvado, argued the cause for respondent G.H. (Barry, Corvado, Grassi & Gibson and Edward L. Barocas, attorneys)., Scott T. Schweiger, argued the cause for respondents James Barclay and Jeffrey Finguerra., Lynette Siragusa, argued the cause for amicus curiae Legal Services of New Jersey (Melville P. Miller, Jr., President, attorney)., Michael Z. Buncher, Deputy Public Defender, submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of amicus curiae Office of the Public Defender (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney)., Stephen M. Latimer, submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (Loughlin & Latimer, attorneys)., Joan D. Van Pelt, Deputy Public Advocate, submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of amicus curiae Department of the Public Advocate (Ronald K. Chen, Public Advocate, attorney).
Per Curiam.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
[*136] PER CURIAM.

We granted certification in this consolidated appeal to review an Appellate Division determination that Megan’s Law, see N.J.S.A. 20:7-1 to -19, preempted and required the invalidation of municipal ordinances enacted by Cherry Hill Township and Galloway Township. The challenged ordinances each operated to prohibit convicted sex offenders from living within a designated distance of any school, park, playground, public library, or daycare center in its respective municipal jurisdiction. We now affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Lisa’s comprehensive opinion. G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 401 N.J.Super. 392, 951 A.2d 221 (2008). Accordingly, we hold that Cherry Hill Township’s and Galloway Township’s ordinances, establishing residency restrictions that formed buffer zones for convicted sex offenders living within their communities, are precluded by the present, stark language of Megan’s Law. It is that language which controls.

That said, we add the following. At oral argument, this Court was urged to provide guidance about the limits to Megan’s Law’s preemption of municipal action in respect of convicted sex offenders. Cherry Hill also sought to have this Court address hypothetical variations of its present ordinance, presumably to glean advice that might salvage an ordinance to replace the one invalidated. We cannot answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions. See Crescent Pk. Tenants Ass’n v. Realty Eq. Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107, 275 A.2d 433 (1971); N.J. Tpk. Auth. v. Parsons, 3 N.J. 235, 240, 69 A.2d 875 (1949). The judicial function operates best when a concrete dispute is presented to the courts. All that is before us is the viability of the challenged ordinances. That was all that was before the Appellate Division and that is all we can address. Accordingly, we decline the municipalities’ requests that we answer hypothetical questions about un-enacted ordinances or that we provide advisory opinions to function in the abstract.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.

[*137] For affirmance—Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS—6.

Opposed—N one.