public trust doctrine in New Jersey

2015The public trust doctrine encompasses the "legal principle that the State holds 'ownership, dominion and sovereignty' over tidally flowed lands 'in trust for the people.'" City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung Liu, 203 N.J. 464, 474 (2010) (quoting Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 316-17 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 , 105 S. Ct. 93 , 83 L.

2015The public trust doctrine encompasses the "legal principle that the State holds 'ownership, dominion and sovereignty' over tidally flowed lands 'in trust for the people.'" City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung Liu, 203 N.J. 464, 474 (2010) (quoting Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 316-17 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 , 105 S. Ct. 93 , 83 L.

2015The public trust doctrine encompasses the "legal principle that the State holds 'ownership, dominion and sovereignty' over tidally flowed lands 'in trust for the people.'" City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung Liu, 203 N.J. 464, 474 (2010) (quoting Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 316-17 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 , 105 S. Ct. 93 , 83 L.

2015The public trust doctrine encompasses the "legal principle that the State holds 'ownership, dominion and sovereignty' over tidally flowed lands 'in trust for the people.'" City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung Liu, 203 N.J. 464, 474 (2010) (quoting Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 316-17 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 , 105 S. Ct. 93 , 83 L.

2015The public trust doctrine encompasses the "legal principle that the State holds 'ownership, dominion and sovereignty' over tidally flowed lands 'in trust for the people.'" City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung Liu, 203 N.J. 464, 474 (2010) (quoting Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 316-17 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 , 105 S. Ct. 93 , 83 L.

2015The public trust doctrine encompasses the "legal principle that the State holds 'ownership, dominion and sovereignty' over tidally flowed lands 'in trust for the people.'" City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung Liu, 203 N.J. 464, 474 (2010) (quoting Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 316-17 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 , 105 S. Ct. 93 , 83 L.

2019Thus, the judge held that the Borough had violated its "duty under the public trust doctrine" by "plac[ing] the interest of Belmar's residents before those of the beachgoers." Ibid. *593 As a remedy for Belmar's past violations of the public trust doctrine, to prevent future violations, and to effectuate its obligation as a trustee of its beach-fee related funds, the judge ordered the Borough to keep clear financial accounts in the future: Commencing with the 1990 summer season, Belmar shall maintain complete, accurate, and traceable records documenting the costs relating to its beachfront fac

2019Thus, the judge held that the Borough had violated its "duty under the public trust doctrine" by "plac[ing] the interest of Belmar's residents before those of the beachgoers. " Ibid.

2019In Secure Heritage , 361 N.J.

2019Super. at 310 -11 , 825 A.2d 534 , which predated enactment of the CRA, the plaintiff sought counsel fees for proving a violation of the public trust doctrine.

2015DEP has not asserted that the exercise of municipal authority under this statue is pre-empted by other legislation or by application of the public trust doctrine. 14 A-1752-12T3 therefore bears responsibility for the management of its beaches. [Ibid.] Distinguishing "public trust doctrine cases the DEP relie[d] upon," we concluded "the . . . doctrine does not provide any basis for a DEP rule that preempts the statutory authority of municipalities to regulate municipally-owned beaches, including deciding when they shall be open to the public." Id. at 600 .

2015DEP has not asserted that the exercise of municipal authority under this statue is pre-empted by other legislation or by application of the public trust doctrine. 14 A-1752-12T3 therefore bears responsibility for the management of its beaches. [Ibid.] Distinguishing "public trust doctrine cases the DEP relie[d] upon," we concluded "the . . . doctrine does not provide any basis for a DEP rule that preempts the statutory authority of municipalities to regulate municipally-owned beaches, including deciding when they shall be open to the public." Id. at 600 .

2001Thus, in Van Ness, supra, 78 N.J. at 179 , 393 A. 2d 571 , the Court, while applying the doctrine to open a beach to non-residents, recognized that "the municipality, in the exercise of its police power and in the interest of the public health and safety, would have the right to adopt reasonable regulations as to the use and enjoyment of the beach area." In State v. Oliver, 320 N.J.Super. 405, 415-16 , 727 A. 2d 491 , certif. denied, 161 N.J. 332 , 736 A. 2d 525 (1999), the court denied that the public-trust doctrine prevented a borough from closing its beach to surfboarders during a storm.

2001Thus, in Van Ness, supra, 78 N.J. at 179 , 393 A. 2d 571 , the Court, while applying the doctrine to open a beach to non-residents, recognized that "the municipality, in the exercise of its police power and in the interest of the public health and safety, would have the right to adopt reasonable regulations as to the use and enjoyment of the beach area." In State v. Oliver, 320 N.J.Super. 405, 415-16 , 727 A. 2d 491 , certif. denied, 161 N.J. 332 , 736 A. 2d 525 (1999), the court denied that the public-trust doctrine prevented a borough from closing its beach to surfboarders during a storm.

2020A-2278-17T4 20 451 N.J.

2020Id. at 241 .

2010Generally, the State of New Jersey “owns in fee simple all lands that are flowed by the tide up to the high-water line or mark,” O’Neill v. State Highway Dep’t, 50 N.J. 307, 323 , 235 A.2d 1 (1967), 6 and the owner of oceanfront property holds title to the property upland of the high water mark, Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Masciarella, 51 N.J. 352, 357 , 240 A.2d 665 (1968). 7 The shoreline to the ocean, however, is in a constant state of flux.

2010Generally, the State of New Jersey “owns in fee simple all lands that are flowed by the tide up to the high-water line or mark,” O’Neill v. State Highway Dep’t, 50 N.J. 307, 323 , 235 A.2d 1 (1967), 6 and the owner of oceanfront property holds title to the property upland of the high water mark, Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Masciarella, 51 N.J. 352, 357 , 240 A.2d 665 (1968). 7 The shoreline to the ocean, however, is in a constant state of flux.

2010Generally, the State of New Jersey “owns in fee simple all lands that are flowed by the tide up to the high-water line or mark,” O’Neill v. State Highway Dep’t, 50 N.J. 307, 323 , 235 A.2d 1 (1967), 6 and the owner of oceanfront property holds title to the property upland of the high water mark, Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Masciarella, 51 N.J. 352, 357 , 240 A.2d 665 (1968). 7 The shoreline to the ocean, however, is in a constant state of flux.

2010Generally, the State of New Jersey “owns in fee simple all lands that are flowed by the tide up to the high-water line or mark,” O’Neill v. State Highway Dep’t, 50 N.J. 307, 323 , 235 A.2d 1 (1967), 6 and the owner of oceanfront property holds title to the property upland of the high water mark, Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Masciarella, 51 N.J. 352, 357 , 240 A.2d 665 (1968). 7 The shoreline to the ocean, however, is in a constant state of flux.

2008Id. at II-36 to -45 (citing some of the then-current cases addressing issues of beach ownership and the public trust doctrine that were unresolved at the time).

2008The Court found such authority in the DEP's general power under CAFRA "to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public." Id. at 61 , 879 A. 2d 112 (quoting Egg Harbor, supra, 94 N.J. at 372 , 464 A. 2d 1115 ).

2008The Court found such authority in the DEP's general power under CAFRA "to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public." Id. at 61 , 879 A. 2d 112 (quoting Egg Harbor, supra, 94 N.J. at 372 , 464 A. 2d 1115 ).

2008However, the essential question presented in Marks was whether property below the mean high water mark that the State has granted to a private property owner is still subject to the rights of the public under the public trust doctrine. [1] See id. at 378-81 .

2008Whether to impose such an obligation upon those municipalities, and if so, how to determine the magnitude of the obligation and the manner in which it should be satisfied, implicates "important policy question[s]", Cooper, supra, 56 N.J. at 598 , 267 A. 2d 533 , that in our judgment are within the exclusive province of the Legislature.

2008Whether to impose such an obligation upon those municipalities, and if so, how to determine the magnitude of the obligation and the manner in which it should be satisfied, implicates "important policy question[s]", Cooper, supra, 56 N.J. at 598 , 267 A. 2d 533 , that in our judgment are within the exclusive province of the Legislature.

2008In Van Ness v. Borough of Deal, 78 N.J. 174, 179 , 393 A. 2d 571 (1978), the Court stated: "Of course, the municipality, in the exercise of the police power and in the interest of public health and safety, would have the right to adopt reasonable regulations as to the use and enjoyment of the beach area." Accord Vogt, supra, 341 N.J.Super. at 423 , 775 A. 2d 551 ; Oliver, supra, 320 N.J.Super. at 416 , 727 A. 2d 491 .

2008In Van Ness v. Borough of Deal, 78 N.J. 174, 179 , 393 A. 2d 571 (1978), the Court stated: "Of course, the municipality, in the exercise of the police power and in the interest of public health and safety, would have the right to adopt reasonable regulations as to the use and enjoyment of the beach area." Accord Vogt, supra, 341 N.J.Super. at 423 , 775 A. 2d 551 ; Oliver, supra, 320 N.J.Super. at 416 , 727 A. 2d 491 .

2005In 1821 the New Jersey Supreme Court was the first in the United States to verify its application in the New World, in Arnold v. Mundy [, 6 N.J.L. 1 (1821)]; in 1842 the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that court's ruling in Martin v. Waddell [ 's Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 , 16 Pet. 367 , 10 L.Ed. 997 (1842)].

2005In 1821 the New Jersey Supreme Court was the first in the United States to verify its application in the New World, in Arnold v. Mundy [, 6 N.J.L. 1 (1821)]; in 1842 the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that court's ruling in Martin v. Waddell [ 's Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 , 16 Pet. 367 , 10 L.Ed. 997 (1842)].

2005Because "it has been long established that the individual States have the authority to define the limits of the lands held in public trust and to recognize private rights in such lands as they see fit[,]" Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469, 475 , 108 S.Ct. 791, 794-95 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 877 (1988), the lands subject to the public trust doctrine are to be determined by each State.

2005Because "it has been long established that the individual States have the authority to define the limits of the lands held in public trust and to recognize private rights in such lands as they see fit[,]" Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469, 475 , 108 S.Ct. 791, 794-95 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 877 (1988), the lands subject to the public trust doctrine are to be determined by each State.

2001Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 311 , 471 A. 2d 355 , cert. denied sub nom, Bay Head Improvement Ass'n v. Matthews, 469 U.S. 821 , 105 S.Ct. 93 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 39 (1984); Karam, supra, 308 N.J.Super. at 240 , 705 A. 2d 1221 ; Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N.J.L. 1, 3 (Sup.Ct.1821).

2001Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, 95 N.J. 306, 311 , 471 A. 2d 355 , cert. denied sub nom, Bay Head Improvement Ass'n v. Matthews, 469 U.S. 821 , 105 S.Ct. 93 , 83 L.Ed. 2d 39 (1984); Karam, supra, 308 N.J.Super. at 240 , 705 A. 2d 1221 ; Arnold v. Mundy, 6 N.J.L. 1, 3 (Sup.Ct.1821).