Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
35 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 19 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re Stallworthgreen2 sentences2025Super. 1, 21-22 (App. Div. 2018); see also In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011). "[A]n appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. 2024In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007)). | 4 | 5 |
In re Weilgreen2 sentences2021State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213, 222-23 (2016). 2020State Parole Bd., 224 N.J. 213, 222-23 (2016) ("Judicial review of the Parole Board's decisions is guided by the arbitrary and capricious standard that constrains other administrative action."). | 4 | 4 |
Russo v. BD. OF TRUSTEES, POLICE.green2 sentences2026Sys., 206 N.J. 14 , A-2838-23 12 27 (2011)). "[A]n appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. 2026Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011)). "[A]n appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. | 3 | 4 |
Karins v. City of Atlantic Citygreen2 sentences2025Super. 250 , 260–61 (App. Div. 2014) (citing Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998)). "[A]n appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. 2020City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998) (quoting George Harms Constr. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Cartergreen2 sentences2024In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007)). 2020In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting In Re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007)). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Herrmanngreen2 sentences2024Under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard, we discern no basis to reverse the GRC's findings and determination as there is no "clear showing that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record," In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. at 27-28 . 2021In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). "[A]n appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. | 1 | 3 |
In Re Parole Application of Hawleygreen2 sentences2017Our "review of the Parole Board's decisions is guided by the arbitrary and capricious standard that constrains other administrative action." Id. at 222-23 (citing Hawley, supra, 98 N.J. at 112-13 ). 2017Our "review of the Parole Board's decisions is guided by the arbitrary and capricious standard that constrains other administrative action." Id. at 222-23 (citing Hawley, supra, 98 N.J. at 112-13 ). | 1 | 2 |
Judith A. Dinapoli v. Board of Education of the Township Of verona, Essex Countygreen1 sentence2026Thus, we reverse an agency's decision "only if we conclude that the decision . . . is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." DiNapoli v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Verona, 434 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bendergreen1 sentence2025That judicial review protects defendants against prosecutorial abuse of discretion in the application of enhanced sentencing.” Id. at 175 (citation omitted); see also State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979) (“Ordinarily, an abuse of discretion will be manifest if defendant can show that a prosecutorial veto (a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment.”). | 1 | 1 |
Davidow v. Bd. of Adj. Tp. of South Brunswickgreen2 sentences2025Davidow A-2915-22 14 v. Bd. of Adjustment, 123 N.J. 2025Davidow, 123 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kirkgreen1 sentence2025That judicial review protects defendants against prosecutorial abuse of discretion in the application of enhanced sentencing.” Id. at 175 (citation omitted); see also State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979) (“Ordinarily, an abuse of discretion will be manifest if defendant can show that a prosecutorial veto (a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment.”). | 1 | 1 |
Robert Lavezzi v. State of N.J. (072856)green1 sentence2025An appellate court accords "a 'strong presumption of reasonableness' to an administrative agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities." Id. at 13 (quoting Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014)). "[A]n appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard ," Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. | 1 | 1 |
Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown Townshipgreen1 sentence2024Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown Twp., 199 N.J. 1, 9 (2009). "[A]n appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. | 1 | 1 |
In re Yuchtgreen1 sentence2024Emps.' Health Benefits Comm'ns' Implementation of Yucht, 233 N.J. 267, 280 (2018) (describing the arbitrary-and-capricious standard as a determination of whether the decision under review "conforms with relevant law," is supported by "substantial credible evidence," and is not "clearly" erroneous). | 1 | 1 |
Rocky Hill Citizens v. Planning Bd. of Borough of Rocky Hillgreen1 sentence2021Bd., 406 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Department of Civil Servicegreen2 sentences2019In re Stallworth , 208 N.J. 182 , 194, 26 A.3d 1059 (2011) ("In order to reverse an agency's judgment, an appellate court must find the agency's decision to be 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [ ] not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.' " (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison , 81 N.J. 571 , 579-80, 410 A.2d 686 (1980) ) ); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv. , 39 N.J. 556 , 562, 189 A.2d 712 (1963) ("[W]e will not upset a determination by the Commission in the absence of a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasona 2019In re Stallworth , 208 N.J. 182 , 194, 26 A.3d 1059 (2011) ("In order to reverse an agency's judgment, an appellate court must find the agency's decision to be 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [ ] not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.' " (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison , 81 N.J. 571 , 579-80, 410 A.2d 686 (1980) ) ); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv. , 39 N.J. 556 , 562, 189 A.2d 712 (1963) ("[W]e will not upset a determination by the Commission in the absence of a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasona | 1 | 1 |
515 ASSOCIATES v. City of Newarkgreen2 sentences1994See 515 Assocs. v. City of Newark, 132 N.J. 180, 185-86 , 623 A. 2d 1366 (1993). 1994See 515 Assocs. v. City of Newark, 132 N.J. 180, 185-86 , 623 A. 2d 1366 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruchgreen2 sentences1992In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 108-109 , 109 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 103 L.Ed. 2d 80, 91 (1989), the Supreme Court clarified "the appropriate standard of review in § 1132(a)(1)(B) actions challenging denials of benefits based on plan interpretations," explaining that the federal courts had adopted the arbitrary and capricious standard developed under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 186 (c). 1992In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 108-109 , 109 S.Ct. 948, 953 , 103 L.Ed. 2d 80, 91 (1989), the Supreme Court clarified "the appropriate standard of review in § 1132(a)(1)(B) actions challenging denials of benefits based on plan interpretations," explaining that the federal courts had adopted the arbitrary and capricious standard developed under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 186 (c). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Henry v. Rahway State Prison
green
2 sentences2019In re Stallworth , 208 N.J. 182 , 194, 26 A.3d 1059 (2011) ("In order to reverse an agency's judgment, an appellate court must find the agency's decision to be 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [ ] not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.' " (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison , 81 N.J. 571 , 579-80, 410 A.2d 686 (1980) ) ); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv. , 39 N.J. 556 , 562, 189 A.2d 712 (1963) ("[W]e will not upset a determination by the Commission in the absence of a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasona 2019In re Stallworth , 208 N.J. 182 , 194, 26 A.3d 1059 (2011) ("In order to reverse an agency's judgment, an appellate court must find the agency's decision to be 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [ ] not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.' " (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison , 81 N.J. 571 , 579-80, 410 A.2d 686 (1980) ) ); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv. , 39 N.J. 556 , 562, 189 A.2d 712 (1963) ("[W]e will not upset a determination by the Commission in the absence of a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious or unreasona | 2 | 2017–2019 |
Cell South of NJ, Inc. v. ZONING BD. OF ADJUSTMENT OF WEST WINDSOR TWP.
green
2 sentences2009Cell South v. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 172 N.J. 75, 89 , 796 A. 2d 247 (2002). 2009Cell South v. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 172 N.J. 75, 89 , 796 A. 2d 247 (2002). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n
green
1 sentence2025"We review agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard." Ibid. (citing Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Robin B. Wojtkowiak v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission and New Jersey Division on Civil Rights
green
1 sentence2025An appellate court accords "a 'strong presumption of reasonableness' to an administrative agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities." Id. at 13 (quoting Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014)). "[A]n appellate court reviews agency decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard ," Zimmerman v. Sussex Cnty. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Parole Application of Trantino
green
1 sentence2017The Board's decision regarding 3 In Re Trantino Parole Application, 89 N.J. 347 (1982). 5 A-4181-14T4 parole will not be disturbed unless it is "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or . . . not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (quoting Henry, supra, 81 N.J. at 579 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Foxx v. My Vintage Baby, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Our "review of the Parole Board's decisions is guided by the arbitrary and capricious standard that constrains other administrative action." Id. at 222-23 (citing Hawley, supra, 98 N.J. at 112-13 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
green
2 sentences2015Federal trustee decisions that are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard include (1) estimation of total damages, In re MTBE , 33 F.Supp.3d at 265 ; (2) the chosen measure of comparative fault and apportionment of liability, Cannons , 899 F.2d at 87 ; and (3) the chosen method of determining the total projected costs to be paid by each settler. 2015Federal trustee decisions that are reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard include (1) estimation of total damages, In re MTBE , 33 F.Supp.3d at 265 ; (2) the chosen measure of comparative fault and apportionment of liability, Cannons , 899 F.2d at 87 ; and (3) the chosen method of determining the total projected costs to be paid by each settler. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State Ex Rel. Rc
green
2 sentences2012In R.C., the Appellate Division acknowledged that two standards of review could apply: (1) the arbitrary and capricious standard used when reviewing various discretionary sentencing decisions by a prosecutor; or (2) the patent and gross abuse of discretion standard that governs “a prosecutor’s refusal to consent to a defendant’s admission into PTI.” Id. at 259 , 798 A.2d 111 (citations omitted). 2012In R.C., the Appellate Division acknowledged that two standards of review could apply: (1) the arbitrary and capricious standard used when reviewing various discretionary sentencing decisions by a prosecutor; or (2) the patent and gross abuse of discretion standard that governs “a prosecutor’s refusal to consent to a defendant’s admission into PTI.” Id. at 259 , 798 A.2d 111 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
George Harms Construction Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority
green
2 sentences1998Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 , 644 A.2d 76 (1994) (citations omitted).] The City argues that in this disciplinary case Karins’s utterance is not protected under either the Federal or State Constitution, and therefore the decision of the Merit System Board was arbitrary and capricious. 1998Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 , 644 A.2d 76 (1994) (citations omitted).] The City argues that in this disciplinary case Karins’s utterance is not protected under either the Federal or State Constitution, and therefore the decision of the Merit System Board was arbitrary and capricious. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Lagares
green
2 sentences1996Lagares, supra, 127 N.J. at 33 , 601 A.2d 698 . 1996Lagares, supra, 127 N.J. at 33 , 601 A.2d 698 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.