New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 10:4-6 (2026)
"Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act."
✓ current as of May 2026
1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Senator Byron M. Baer Open Public Meetings Act."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68
cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Nw. Bergen Cnty. Utils. Auth. v. Kathleen A. Donovan (075060), 143 A.3d 290 (N.J. 2016).
Nw. Bergen Cnty. Utils. Auth. v. Kathleen A. Donovan (075060), 143 A.3d 290 (N.J. 2016). “The County Executive vetoed the minutes of the emergency meeting that authorized the appeal, contending that the Authority had violated requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21. The Authority held another meeting on March 28, 2012, to address…”
Kean Fed'n of Teachers v. Morell, 187 A.3d 153 (N.J. 2018). “231 (codified at N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21), the Legislature established procedures governing the conduct of meetings of public bodies.”
Alpha Painting & Constr. Co. v. Delaware River Port Auth., 853 F.3d 671 (3rd Cir. 2017). “Alpha also claimed that DRPA's conduct violated its due process rights, the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:4-6 , and the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.”
Armano v. Martin, 157 F. Supp. 3d 392 (D.N.J. 2016). “Open Public Meetings Act5 (OPMA), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21, and Rice v. Union County Regional High School Board of Education, 155 N.”
Jodeco, Inc. v. Hann, 674 F. Supp. 488 (D.N.J. 1987). “40:55D-69; (3) the meetings are governed by the strict requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act, NJ.S.A. 10:4-6; and (4) erroneous decisions are correctable on appeal.”
Desanctis v. Borough of Belmar, 189 A.3d 919 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “Such a procedure promotes government transparency, a clear legislative aim discerned from reading the Open Public Meetings Act (Sunshine Law), N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21, in pari materia with the statutes we here considered.”
Csorny v. Shoreham-Wading River Cent. Sch. Dist., 305 A.D.2d 83 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). “(193 NJ Super 488, 475 A2d 59 [1984], affg 187 NJ Super 566, 455 A2d 563 [1982]), the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, similarly held that a school board could not enact a blanket prohibition against videotaping of public meetings, as such a rule violated New…”
Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F.3d 601 (3rd Cir. 1998). “Subsequently, but still before the damages trial, the Borough moved for relief from the stipulation on the grounds that it had authorized the stipulation in violation of the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act (“the Act”), N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 10:4-6 et seq. (West 1993).”
Libertarians for Transparent Gov't v. Gov't Records Council, 180 A.3d 327 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “On appeal, plaintiff argues that the draft minutes are not pre-decisional or deliberative solely because they are unapproved, and, even if portions of the minutes are exempt as privileged, the minutes should be produced with redactions.”
Alpha Painting & Constr. Co. v. Delaware River Port Auth. of Pennsylvania, 208 F. Supp. 3d 607 (D.N.J. 2016). “Instead, the facts that Alpha presented to prove such violations support the Court’s conclusion that DRPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously. .”
Monarch Ent. Bureau, Inc. v. New Jersey High. Auth., 715 F. Supp. 1290 (D.N.J. 1989). “30) and (3) that the Authority conspired (with whom it is not specifically alleged) “to prohibit and influence governmental leaders and elected officials to stop Plaintiff” from gaining approval to build an alternative open-air amphitheater on the grounds of Liberty State Park…”
David W. Opderbeck v. Midland Park Bd. of Educ., 120 A.3d 967 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015). “" N.J.S.A. 10:4-6. Assemblyman Baer personally championed the public policies of transparency and access embodied in the OPMA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.