In the Matter of Elias, 948 A.2d 1272 (N.J. 2008). · Go Syfert
Search
In the Matter of Elias, 948 A.2d 1272 (N.J. 2008). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2009–2019 · …we look to extrinsic evidence if a plain reading of the enactment leads to more than one plausible interpretation. ⚠ not in text
63 citation events (63 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: VACCARO v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC (njd, 2024-10-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Under fire — who is questioning this case
Citations from separate opinions of courts that could overrule this case. This is a warning signal, not a treatment change. The flag color above is unaffected.
Concurrence L.R. v. Camden City Public School District (080333)(Camden, Morris, and Somerset Counties and Statewide) (2019)
“"Generally, under those standards, the intent of the drafters is to be found in the plain language of the enactment." Bedford v. Riello , 195 N.J. 210 , 221, 948 A.2d 1272 (2008) (citing DiProspero , 183 N.J. at 492 , 874 A.2d 1039 ).”
Concurrence Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (2010)
“Bedford v. Riello, 195 N.J. 210 , 948 A.2d 1272 (2008).”
Concurrence Bedford v. Riello (2008)
“Ante at 217, 218, 948 A.2d 1272 .”
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) VACCARO v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC
D.N.J. · 2024 · confidence medium
Furthermore, “[o]nly when a fair ‘reading of the enactment leads to more than one plausible interpretation’ do[es] [the court] look to extrinsic evidence.” US Bank, 42 A.3d at 877 (quoting Bedford v. Riello, 948 A.2d 1272, 1280 (N.J. 2008)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bedford v. Riello (2×)
N.J. · 2008 · confidence medium
Ante at 217, 218, 948 A.2d 1272 .
discussed Cited "see" Society Hill at Piscataway Condominium Ass'n v. Township of Piscataway
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
In construing New Jersey regulations, the courts must do so “in the same manner that [they] would interpret a statute.” U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Hough, 210 N.J. 187, 199 , 42 A.3d 870 (2012); see Bedford v. Riello, 195 N.J. 210, 221-222 , 948 A.2d 1272 (2008).
discussed Cited "see" US Bank, N.A. v. Hough (2×)
N.J. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bedford, supra, 195 N.J. at 222-23 , 948 A.2d 1272 (giving weight to “long-standing interpretation” of regulation by agency even though agency was not involved in matter); In re Adoption of a Child by W.P., 163 N.J. 158, 173-74 , 748 A.2d 515 (2000) (giving deference to interpretation of statute by agency, which intervened as amicus curiae).
discussed Cited "see" Paff v. City of East Orange
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Burnett v. County of Bergen, 198 N.J. 408, 421 , 968 A. 2d 1151 (2009) (noting that "each part or section [of OPRA] should be construed in connection with every other part or section to provide a harmonious whole.") (quoting Bedford v. Riello, 195 N.J. 210, 224 , 948 A. 2d 1272 (2008)).
discussed Cited "see" Burnett v. County of Bergen (2×)
N.J. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bedford, supra, 195 N.J. at 224 , 948 A. 2d 1272 ; 2A Sutherland, supra, §§ 46:05, 47:06.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re the Revocation or the Suspension of the Provisional Accreditation of &/Or the Imposition of Probation on Eastwick College
N.J. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
If, however, the regulation’s “language is clear, then the interpretative process will end without resort to extrinsic sources.” Ibid.; see also U.S. Bank, N.A., supra, 210 N.J. at 199 , 42 A.3d 870 (quoting Bedford, supra, 195 N.J. at 222, 948 A.2d 1272 ); In re Election Law Enft, supra, 201 N.J. at 263 , 989 A.2d 1254 (citing DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492-93 , 874 A.2d 1039 (2005)); Lozano v. Frank DeLuca Constr., 178 N.J. 513, 522 , 842 A.2d 156 *543 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Sybil M. Elias, a Judge of the Municipal Courts of East Orange and Irvington
D-161 September Term, 2007.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Jun 16, 2008.
948 A.2d 1272
Rabner, Long, Lavecchia, Wallace, Court'S, Rivera-Soto, Albin.
Published

ORDER

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct having filed with the Court a presentment pursuant to Rule 2:15-15(a) recommending that SYBIL M. ELIAS, a Judge of the Municipal Courts of the City of East Orange and the City of Irvington, be censured for violating Canon 1 (a judge should personally observe high standards of conduct so the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved), Canon 2A (a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary), Canon 2B (a judge shall not allow social or other relationships to influence the judge’s conduct or judgment and shall not convey the impression that others are in a special position of influence), Canon 3A(6) (a judge shall not initiate or participate in ex parte conversations concerning a pending or impending proceeding), Canon 3C(1) (a judge must disqualify herself from proceedings in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned) of the Code of Judicial [*192] Conduct and for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute (Rule

And respondent, through counsel, having waived her right to a hearing before the Supreme Court and having submitted herself to the judgment of the Court based on the presentment and the record before the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct;

And the Court having determined that a censure, as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct in its presentment, is the appropriate quantum of discipline;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the presentment of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct is adopted and Judge SYBIL M. ELIAS is hereby censured.

Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and HOENS join in the Court’s Order. Justice RIVERA-SOTO dissents from the Order and would impose an admonition on respondent. Justice ALBIN did not participate.