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.
7 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2025 3 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 Riverview Development, LLCgreen2 sentences2024The appellants were seeking a formal administrative hearing, which the court rejected but found the CZM High-Rise Structures Rule "undoubtedly embrace[d] a goal of protecting scenic views of the waterfront," and that goal of protection was qualified by the phrase "to th e maximum extent practicable." Id. at 435 . 2013Although “the APA does not foreclose such third parties from seeking judicial review of the merits of a permit once it is issued by an agency,” In re Riverview Dev., LLC, 411 N.J.Super. 409, 425 , 986 A.2d 714 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 202 N.J. 347 , 997 A.2d 232 (2010), it gives the non-applicant objector no automatic right to a formal administrative hearing to contest the issuance of a permit unless he or she can establish a statutory or constitutional right to that hearing. | 2 | 4 |
In re Authorization for Freshwater Wetlands Statewide General Permit 6green1 sentence2021Permit 6, Special Activity Transition Area Waiver for Stormwater Mgmt., Water Quality Certification, 433 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Freshwater Wetlands Permitsgreen1 sentence2017Permits, 185 N.J. 452, 463-64 (2006). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025241
green
2 sentences2013In re NJPDES Permit No. NJ002524-1, 185 N.J. 474, 481 , 888 A.2d 454 (2006); In re Freshwater Wetlands Statewide Gen. 2013In re NJPDES Permit No. NJ002524-1, 185 N.J. 474, 481 , 888 A.2d 454 (2006); In re Freshwater Wetlands Statewide Gen. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Jenkins
neutral
2 sentences2013Although “the APA does not foreclose such third parties from seeking judicial review of the merits of a permit once it is issued by an agency,” In re Riverview Dev., LLC, 411 N.J.Super. 409, 425 , 986 A.2d 714 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 202 N.J. 347 , 997 A.2d 232 (2010), it gives the non-applicant objector no automatic right to a formal administrative hearing to contest the issuance of a permit unless he or she can establish a statutory or constitutional right to that hearing. 2013Although “the APA does not foreclose such third parties from seeking judicial review of the merits of a permit once it is issued by an agency,” In re Riverview Dev., LLC, 411 N.J.Super. 409, 425 , 986 A.2d 714 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 202 N.J. 347 , 997 A.2d 232 (2010), it gives the non-applicant objector no automatic right to a formal administrative hearing to contest the issuance of a permit unless he or she can establish a statutory or constitutional right to that hearing. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Spalt v. New Jersey DEP
green
2 sentences2010Later, in Spalt, supra, 237 N.J.Super. at 206 , 567 A. 2d 264 , we considered whether the plaintiffs had a statutory or constitutional right to a formal administrative hearing contesting a CAFRA permit application. 2010Later, in Spalt, supra, 237 N.J.Super. at 206 , 567 A. 2d 264 , we considered whether the plaintiffs had a statutory or constitutional right to a formal administrative hearing contesting a CAFRA permit application. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.