trial-type hearing in New Jersey

2019Ctr. v. Fishman , 167 N.J. 123 , 136-37, 770 A.2d 233 (2001) ("Although not easily defined, informal agency action is any determination that is taken without a trial-type hearing, including investigating, publicizing, negotiating, settling, advising, planning, and supervising a regulated industry.").

2019Ctr. v. Fishman , 167 N.J. 123 , 136-37, 770 A.2d 233 (2001) ("Although not easily defined, informal agency action is any determination that is taken without a trial-type hearing, including investigating, publicizing, negotiating, settling, advising, planning, and supervising a regulated industry.").

2024Permits, 185 N.J. 452, 463-66 (2006) (distinguishing between instances where a trial-type hearing before an agency or municipality is expressly provided for by statute and those where no such requirement is set forth by the Legislature).

2021Permits, 185 N.J. at 473 (stating "speculative" threats of property damage from development do not establish particularized property interest entitling third parties to a trial-type hearing).

2006Adjudicative facts usually answer the questions of who did what, where, when, how, why, with what motive or intent; adjudicative facts are roughly the kind of facts that go to a jury in a jury case.” In contrast, legislative facts, the determination of which will not normally require a trial-type hearing, “do not usually concern the immediate parties, but are the general facts which help the tribunal decide questions of law and policy and discretion!”] As Professor Davis has explained, [a]n agency should engage in formal factfinding when, regardless of the role it is playing, the need for fact

2006Adjudicative facts usually answer the questions of who did what, where, when, how, why, with what motive or intent; adjudicative facts are roughly the kind of facts that go to a jury in a jury case.” In contrast, legislative facts, the determination of which will not normally require a trial-type hearing, “do not usually concern the immediate parties, but are the general facts which help the tribunal decide questions of law and policy and discretion!”] As Professor Davis has explained, [a]n agency should engage in formal factfinding when, regardless of the role it is playing, the need for fact

2018Deborah Heart & Lung Ctr. v. Howard, 404 N.J.

2013See Deborah Heart & Lung Ctr. v. Howard, 404 N.J.Super. 491, 502-03 , 962 A.2d 577 (App.Div.) (stating that an informal agency action was “not subject to the APA’s requirements governing adoption of agency rules”), certif. denied, 199 N.J. 129 , 970 A.2d 1046 (2009).

2017Co. v. State, 120 N.J. 40, 49 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[I]t is the presence of disputed adjudicative facts, not the vital interests at stake, that requires the protection of formal trial procedure." Id. at 53 ; see also In re NJPDES Permit No. NJ00025241, 185 N.J. 474, 486 (2006); In re Solid Waste Util.

2011N.J.S.A. 52:14B-9; N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10; see In re NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025241 Issued to Asbury Park City, 185 N.J. 474, 481 , 888 A.2d 454 (2006).

2006See, e.g., Buttrey v. United States, 690 F. 2d 1170, 1172, 1176-77 (5th Cir.1982) (holding that due process did not entitle dredge-and-fill permit applicant to trial-type hearing), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 927 , 103 S.Ct. 2087 , 77 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983); Shoreline Assocs. v. Marsh, 555 F.Supp. 169, 174-76 (D.Md.1983) (upholding denial of federal tidal wetlands permit and adjudicatory hearing to property owner who received “a meaningful opportunity” to comment, submit expert reports, and meet with administering agency (internal quotation marks omitted)), aff'd, 725 F.2d 677 (4th Cir.1984); Fichter v

1998This determination was subsequently “approved” by another DYFS staff person with the title of “Regional Administrator.” Consequently, unlike in High Horizons, where the Court concluded that appellant did not have a constitutional right to a trial-type hearing because the “credibility and veracity” of witnesses was not “at issue,” 120 N.J. at 52 , 575 A.2d 1360 (quoting Shoreline Assocs. v. Marsh, 555 F.Supp. 169, 175 (D.Md.1983)), this is essentially a credibility case involving “disputed adjudicative facts.” Id. at 53, 575 A.2d 1360 .

1990In Cunningham v. Department of Civil Service, supra, 69 N.J. 13 , 350 A.2d 58 , the Court split five to two. [A] good deal of law that bears on the proposition [when a trial-type hearing is required] is confused.

1990In Cunningham v. Department of Civil Service, supra, 69 N.J. 13 , 350 A.2d 58 , the Court split five to two. [A] good deal of law that bears on the proposition [when a trial-type hearing is required] is confused.

2006The first Mathews factor is “the private interest that will be affected by the official action;” the second is “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and the last is “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 33 . *468 In applying the Mathews factors to administrative decision-making, courts in

2006The first Mathews factor is “the private interest that will be affected by the official action;” the second is “the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards;” and the last is “the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id. at 335, 96 S.Ct. at 903 , 47 L.Ed.2d at 33 . *468 In applying the Mathews factors to administrative decision-making, courts in

1990Ordinarily, in a permitting process (as for example, under CAFRA, N.J.S.A. 13:19-9a) “the hearing is not adjudicatory and is not required to be conducted as a ‘contested hearing’ under the Administrative Procedure Act.” Public Interest Research Group v. State, supra, 152 N.J.Super. at 207-08 , 377 A.2d 915 (quoting In re Environmental Protection Dep’t, 139 N.J.Super. 514, 516 , 354 A.2d 652 (App.Div.1976)) (although a footnote reserves the question whether the property owner would be entitled to a trial-type hearing).

1990Ordinarily, in a permitting process (as for example, under CAFRA, N.J.S.A. 13:19-9a) “the hearing is not adjudicatory and is not required to be conducted as a ‘contested hearing’ under the Administrative Procedure Act.” Public Interest Research Group v. State, supra, 152 N.J.Super. at 207-08 , 377 A.2d 915 (quoting In re Environmental Protection Dep’t, 139 N.J.Super. 514, 516 , 354 A.2d 652 (App.Div.1976)) (although a footnote reserves the question whether the property owner would be entitled to a trial-type hearing).

2021Third, although environmental interest groups, such as PPA, have standing to appeal an agency's settlements and final decisions based upon their broad representation of citizen interests throughout this state, see Exxon Mobil Corp., 453 N.J.

2019See also Permit 6, 433 N.J.

2016Auth. v. Teller, 384 N.J.

2013See Deborah Heart & Lung Ctr. v. Howard, 404 N.J.Super. 491, 502-03 , 962 A.2d 577 (App.Div.) (stating that an informal agency action was “not subject to the APA’s requirements governing adoption of agency rules”), certif. denied, 199 N.J. 129 , 970 A.2d 1046 (2009).

2013See Deborah Heart & Lung Ctr. v. Howard, 404 N.J.Super. 491, 502-03 , 962 A.2d 577 (App.Div.) (stating that an informal agency action was “not subject to the APA’s requirements governing adoption of agency rules”), certif. denied, 199 N.J. 129 , 970 A.2d 1046 (2009).

2010Permits, 185 N.J. 452, 471 , 888 A. 2d 441 (2006) (noting that even though owners of property in the vicinity of a property for which an application was made for a freshwater wetlands permit were not entitled to a trial-type hearing, they could secure "judicial review" of that decision); see also In re Amico/Tunnel Carwash, 371 N.J.Super. 199, 215 , 852 A. 2d 277 (App.Div.2004); Normandy Beach Improvement Ass'n v. Comm'r, Dep't of Envtl.

2010Permits, 185 N.J. 452, 471 , 888 A. 2d 441 (2006) (noting that even though owners of property in the vicinity of a property for which an application was made for a freshwater wetlands permit were not entitled to a trial-type hearing, they could secure "judicial review" of that decision); see also In re Amico/Tunnel Carwash, 371 N.J.Super. 199, 215 , 852 A. 2d 277 (App.Div.2004); Normandy Beach Improvement Ass'n v. Comm'r, Dep't of Envtl.

2008See In re Valley Hosp., 240 N.J.Super. 301, 312 , 573 A. 2d 203 (App.Div.1990) (discussing the rights of an objector to an award of a certificate of need), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 318 , 598 A. 2d 879 (1991); see also Elizabeth Fed.

2008See In re Valley Hosp., 240 N.J.Super. 301, 312 , 573 A. 2d 203 (App.Div.1990) (discussing the rights of an objector to an award of a certificate of need), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 318 , 598 A. 2d 879 (1991); see also Elizabeth Fed.

2006See, e.g., Buttrey v. United States, 690 F. 2d 1170, 1172, 1176-77 (5th Cir.1982) (holding that due process did not entitle dredge-and-fill permit applicant to trial-type hearing), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 927 , 103 S.Ct. 2087 , 77 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983); Shoreline Assocs. v. Marsh, 555 F.Supp. 169, 174-76 (D.Md.1983) (upholding denial of federal tidal wetlands permit and adjudicatory hearing to property owner who received “a meaningful opportunity” to comment, submit expert reports, and meet with administering agency (internal quotation marks omitted)), aff'd, 725 F.2d 677 (4th Cir.1984); Fichter v