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.
8 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1959–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kennedy v. City of Newarkgreen2 sentences1982In Kennedy v. Newark, 29 N.J. 178 (1958), our Supreme Court decided that a residence requirement for governmental employment, whether at the state, county or municipal level, was constitutional. 1974In balancing personal liberty against the power to enact an ordinance requiring residence in an employer-city, this Court invoked the rational basis test. * * * If there is a rational basis for a residence requirement in furtherance of the public welfare, the constitutional issue must be resolved in favor of the legislative power to ordain it. * * * ( 29 N.J. at 183 ). *78 It was thought that the government could quite rationally and reasonably conclude that employees would perform their respective tasks more conscientiously if they had an attachment to the community which exceeded mere employ | 1 | 4 |
State v. Hoffmangreen1 sentence2023Defendant's alleged actions posed a significant risk of harm to society because her actions are precisely those the PDVA is intended to prohibit and A-1017-22 18 prevent.7 See, e.g., Hoffman, 149 N.J. at 587-90 (finding defendant violated the contempt statute by "sending . . . two mailings" to the victim); State v. E.J.H., 466 N.J. 32 , 39 (App. Div. 2021) (reinstating contempt charge under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b)(1), based on a violation of a restraining order entered under the PDVA, after finding the defendant "was aware of the high probability" the 7 We are aware that in assessing the risk of h | 1 | 1 |
Dunn v. Blumsteingreen2 sentences1974See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 255 , 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1081 , 39 L.Ed. 2d 306, 313 , quoting Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 342 , 92 S.Ct. 995, 1003 , 31 L.Ed. 2d 274, 284, n. 13 , (1972). 1974See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 255 , 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1081 , 39 L.Ed. 2d 306, 313 , quoting Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 342 , 92 S.Ct. 995, 1003 , 31 L.Ed. 2d 274, 284, n. 13 , (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa Countygreen2 sentences1974Id., at 253-261, 94 S.Ct. at 1080-1083 , 39 L.Ed. 2d at 313, 315 . 1974Id., at 253-261, 94 S.Ct. at 1080-1083 , 39 L.Ed. 2d at 313, 315 . | 1 | 1 |
Denton v. City & County of San Franciscogreen2 sentences1959With respect to a residence requirement, see Denton v. City and County of San Francisco, 119 Cal. App. 2d 369 , 260 P. 2d 83, 87 (D. 1959With respect to a residence requirement, see Denton v. City and County of San Francisco, 119 Cal. App. 2d 369 , 260 P. 2d 83, 87 (D. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Evans
green
1 sentence2023Defendant's alleged actions posed a significant risk of harm to society because her actions are precisely those the PDVA is intended to prohibit and A-1017-22 18 prevent.7 See, e.g., Hoffman, 149 N.J. at 587-90 (finding defendant violated the contempt statute by "sending . . . two mailings" to the victim); State v. E.J.H., 466 N.J. 32 , 39 (App. Div. 2021) (reinstating contempt charge under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b)(1), based on a violation of a restraining order entered under the PDVA, after finding the defendant "was aware of the high probability" the 7 We are aware that in assessing the risk of h | 1 | 2023–2023 |
CWA v. Treffinger
green
2 sentences1999The fact that Newark periodically entered into a cam, paign to enforce its residency ordinance does not detract from its efforts nor does it constitute a ground for estoppel against Newark. [ (emphasis added).] The single reason for the judge’s decision dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint was the evidence of instances where the residency ordinance had been enforced by defendants, thus permitting his conclusion that plaintiffs’ complaint was distinguishable from the complaint in Treffinger where the County was unable to set forth “any evidence of a single attempt to enforce the residence requireme 1999The fact that Newark periodically entered into a cam, paign to enforce its residency ordinance does not detract from its efforts nor does it constitute a ground for estoppel against Newark. [ (emphasis added).] The single reason for the judge’s decision dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint was the evidence of instances where the residency ordinance had been enforced by defendants, thus permitting his conclusion that plaintiffs’ complaint was distinguishable from the complaint in Treffinger where the County was unable to set forth “any evidence of a single attempt to enforce the residence requireme | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Martinez Ex Rel. Morales v. Bynum
green
2 sentences1994It is a bona fide residence requirement recognized as constitutional in Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 , 103 S.Ct. 1838 , 75 L.Ed.2d 879 (1983). 1994It is a bona fide residence requirement recognized as constitutional in Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 , 103 S.Ct. 1838 , 75 L.Ed.2d 879 (1983). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Donnelly v. City of Manchester
green
2 sentences1974Krzewinski imposed upon the municipality the burden of demonstrating a "compelling" state interest to justify the impairment but found such an interest to exist (where the residence requirement was as to police officers); Donnelly did not in terms impose the compelling state interest test but rather weighed the "reasonableness of a restriction upon private rights" against the "importance of the public benefit" ( 274 A. 2d, at 791 ), and found the restriction invalid. 1974Krzewinski imposed upon the municipality the burden of demonstrating a “compelling” state interest to justify the impairment but found such an interest to exist (where the residence requirement was as to police officers); Donnelly did not in terms impose the compelling state interest test but rather weighed the “reasonableness of a restriction upon private rights” against the “importance of the public benefit” ( 274 A. 2d, at 791 ), and found the restriction invalid. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.