agency hearing in New Jersey

2015It concurred “with Justice Stevens that there is no inherent contradiction between the majority’s adoption of agency principles and Justice Marshall’s observation that a supervisor’s delegated authority often goes beyond the power to hire and fire.” Lehmann, supra, 132 N.J. at 619 , 626 A.2d 445 .

2015It concurred “with Justice Stevens that there is no inherent contradiction between the majority’s adoption of agency principles and Justice Marshall’s observation that a supervisor’s delegated authority often goes beyond the power to hire and fire.” Lehmann, supra, 132 N.J. at 619 , 626 A.2d 445 .

2024Such a decision cannot "more fully implicate an institution's academic responsibility." Snitow, 103 N.J. at 123 .

2019"Administrative adjudication continues to be the agency's responsibility, although it is still usually effectuated through a bifurcated process in which the hearing and decisional phases are handled separately." Allstars Auto Grp., 234 N.J. at 161 (quoting In re Appeal of Certain Sections of Unif.

2017A "contested case" is defined as 10 The language is mirrored, however, in the parallel provision applicable to gubernatorial elections, N.J.S.A. 19:44A-41(d). 27 A-4131-15T3 a proceeding . . . in which the legal rights, duties, obligations, privileges, benefits or other legal relations of specific parties are required by constitutional right or by statute to be determined by an agency by decisions, determinations, or orders, addressed to them or disposing of their interests, after opportunity for an agency hearing. [Ibid. (emphasis added).] The APA defines "Administrative adjudication" or "adj

2015Our function is to rule on whether the subject matter falls within the substantive authority delegated to the agency and whether the rule was enacted in accordance with applicable legal principles. [In re N.J.A.C. 7:1B-1.1, 431 N.J.

2013“Our function is to rule on whether the subject matter falls within the substantive authority delegated to the agency and whether the rule was enacted in accordance with applicable legal principles.” Ibid.

2013In this regard, the promulgation of administrative rules and regulations lies at the very heart of the administrative process, permitting “expert and flexible control in areas where the diversity of circumstances and situations to be encountered forbids the enactment of legislation anticipating every possible problem which may arise and providing for its solution.” Cammarata v. Essex Co. Park Comm., 26 N.J. 404, 410 , 140 A.2d 397 (1958).

2013In this regard, the promulgation of administrative rules and regulations lies at the very heart of the administrative process, permitting “expert and flexible control in areas where the diversity of circumstances and situations to be encountered forbids the enactment of legislation anticipating every possible problem which may arise and providing for its solution.” Cammarata v. Essex Co. Park Comm., 26 N.J. 404, 410 , 140 A.2d 397 (1958).

2010Procedure Rules, 90 N.J. 85, 93-94 , 447 A. 2d 151 (1982)) (additional citations omitted).] While an agency head should decline hearing a matter if he or she is tainted by actual bias, being "familiar with the facts of the case through the performance of statutory or administrative duties" does not make the agency head biased or partial.

2010Procedure Rules, 90 N.J. 85, 93-94 , 447 A. 2d 151 (1982)) (additional citations omitted).] While an agency head should decline hearing a matter if he or she is tainted by actual bias, being "familiar with the facts of the case through the performance of statutory or administrative duties" does not make the agency head biased or partial.

2010"Thus, the agency's decisional authority over contested cases is directly and integrally related to its regulatory function." To presume that the agency head is biased merely because he or she is applying an agency rule or regulation to a particular employee would severely undermine the function of administrative agencies. [ Id. at 584-85 , 556 A. 2d 314 (quoting In re Uniform Admin.

2010"Thus, the agency's decisional authority over contested cases is directly and integrally related to its regulatory function." To presume that the agency head is biased merely because he or she is applying an agency rule or regulation to a particular employee would severely undermine the function of administrative agencies. [ Id. at 584-85 , 556 A. 2d 314 (quoting In re Uniform Admin.

2009The APA defines a "contested case" as a proceeding, including any licensing proceeding, in which the legal rights, duties, obligations, privileges, benefits or other legal relations of specific parties *412 are required by constitutional right or by statute to be determined by an agency by decisions, determinations, or orders, addressed to them or disposing of their interests, after opportunity for an agency hearing .... [ N.J.S.A. 52:14B-2(b) (emphasis added).] Under this definition of "contested case," the APA "does not create a substantive right to an administrative hearing." [4] In re Fane

2009The APA defines a "contested case" as a proceeding, including any licensing proceeding, in which the legal rights, duties, obligations, privileges, benefits or other legal relations of specific parties *412 are required by constitutional right or by statute to be determined by an agency by decisions, determinations, or orders, addressed to them or disposing of their interests, after opportunity for an agency hearing .... [ N.J.S.A. 52:14B-2(b) (emphasis added).] Under this definition of "contested case," the APA "does not create a substantive right to an administrative hearing." [4] In re Fane

2009Therefore, "[t]he right to an administrative hearing generally must be found outside the APA in another statute or constitutional provision." Ibid. (quoting Christ Hosp. v. Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 330 N.J.Super. 55, 61 , 748 A. 2d 1156 (App.Div.2000)).

2009Therefore, "[t]he right to an administrative hearing generally must be found outside the APA in another statute or constitutional provision." Ibid. (quoting Christ Hosp. v. Dep't of Health & Senior Servs., 330 N.J.Super. 55, 61 , 748 A. 2d 1156 (App.Div.2000)).

2008Additionally, in Maticka v. City of Atlantic City, 216 N.J.Super. 434, 456 , 524 A.2d 416 (App.Div.1987), we held that an agency instruction similar to the DFD instruction before this court required rule-making procedures.

2008Additionally, in Maticka v. City of Atlantic City, 216 N.J.Super. 434, 456 , 524 A.2d 416 (App.Div.1987), we held that an agency instruction similar to the DFD instruction before this court required rule-making procedures.

2008Those factors are whether the administrative determination (1) is intended to have wide coverage encompassing a large segment of the regulated or general public, rather than an individual or a narrow select group; (2) is intended to be applied generally and uniformly to all similarly situated persons; (8) is designed to operate only in future cases, that is, prospectively; (4) prescribes a legal standard or directive that is not otherwise expressly provided by or clearly and obviously inferable from the enabling statutory authorization; (5) reflects an administrative policy that (i) was not pr

2008Those factors are whether the administrative determination (1) is intended to have wide coverage encompassing a large segment of the regulated or general public, rather than an individual or a narrow select group; (2) is intended to be applied generally and uniformly to all similarly situated persons; (8) is designed to operate only in future cases, that is, prospectively; (4) prescribes a legal standard or directive that is not otherwise expressly provided by or clearly and obviously inferable from the enabling statutory authorization; (5) reflects an administrative policy that (i) was not pr

2004Appellants argue that In re Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc., 342 N.J.Super. 439 , 776 A.2d 926 (App.Div.2001), supports their claim that they were entitled to a hearing before an ALJ.

2004Appellants argue that In re Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc., 342 N.J.Super. 439 , 776 A.2d 926 (App.Div.2001), supports their claim that they were entitled to a hearing before an ALJ.

2002Similarly, in In re Revocation of the License of Polk, 90 N.J. 550, 579-80 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982), we found that the Board could not summarily impose a revocation sanction without allowing the physician a hearing.

2002Similarly, in In re Revocation of the License of Polk, 90 N.J. 550, 579-80 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982), we found that the Board could not summarily impose a revocation sanction without allowing the physician a hearing.

2002According to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-11, [no] agency shall revoke or refuse to renew any license unless it has first afforded the licensee an opportunity for a hearing in conformity with the provisions of this act applicable to contested cases. [ (Emphasis added).] A contested case is defined as [a] proceeding including any licensing proceeding, in which the legal rights and duties, obligation, privileges, benefits or other legal relations of specific parties are required by constitutional right or by statute to be determined by agency decisions ... addressed to them ... after opportunity for an agenc

2002According to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-11, [no] agency shall revoke or refuse to renew any license unless it has first afforded the licensee an opportunity for a hearing in conformity with the provisions of this act applicable to contested cases. [ (Emphasis added).] A contested case is defined as [a] proceeding including any licensing proceeding, in which the legal rights and duties, obligation, privileges, benefits or other legal relations of specific parties are required by constitutional right or by statute to be determined by agency decisions ... addressed to them ... after opportunity for an agenc

2001Quad Enters. v. Borough of Paramus, 250 N.J.Super. 256, 263 , 593 A. 2d 1227 (App.Div.1991).

2001Quad Enters. v. Borough of Paramus, 250 N.J.Super. 256, 263 , 593 A. 2d 1227 (App.Div.1991).

1994Safety, 120 N.J. 18, 25 , 575 A.2d 1348 (1990).

1994Safety, 120 N.J. 18, 25 , 575 A.2d 1348 (1990).