a. Except as provided by subsection b. of this section, or for any meeting limited only to consideration of items listed in section 7. b. no public body shall hold a meeting unless adequate notice thereof has been provided to the public.
b. Upon the affirmative vote of three quarters of the members present a public body may hold a meeting notwithstanding the failure to provide adequate notice if:
(1) such meeting is required in order to deal with matters of such urgency and importance that a delay for the purpose of providing adequate notice would be likely to result in substantial harm to the public interest; and
(2) the meeting is limited to discussion of and acting with respect to such matters of urgency and importance; and
(3) notice of such meeting is provided as soon as possible following the calling of such meeting by posting written notice of the same in the public place described in section 3. d. above, and also by notifying the two newspapers described in section 3. d. by telephone, telegram, or by delivering a written notice of same to such newspapers; and
(4) either (a) the public body could not reasonably have foreseen the need for such meeting at a time when adequate notice could have been provided; or (b) although the public body could reasonably have foreseen the need for such meeting at a time when adequate notice could have been provided, it nevertheless failed to do so.
Notes of Decisions
Kean Fed'n of Teachers v. Morell, 187 A.3d 153 (N.J. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The OPMA establishes requirements for notice of meetings, N.J.S.A. 10:4-9, publication of an annual schedule of regular meetings, N.”
David W. Opderbeck v. Midland Park Bd. of Educ., 120 A.3d 967 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015).
· cites it 2× “N.J.S.A. 10:4-9(a). The OPMA provides two separate, yet related, means for public bodies to provide the notice required by N.”
Lewis v. Town of Nederland, 934 P.2d 848 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“§ 84-1411(4) (1994); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:4-9 (West 1993); Ohio Rev.”
Fox v. Twp. of Jackson, 64 F. App'x 338 (3rd Cir. 2003).
“N.J.S.A. 10:4-9(a) of the Open Public Meetings Act provides: “Except as provided by Subsection B of this section, or for any meeting limited only to consideration of items listed in Section 7B no public body shall hold a meeting unless adequate notice thereof has been provided…”
William N. Sosis v. Twp. of Mansfield Comm. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024).
· cites it 4× “In count three, plaintiff alleged that defendants failed or refused to timely post meeting agendas within forty - A-2661-21 5 eight hours of the meeting in accordance with N.J.S.A. 10:4-9. Finally, in count four, plaintiff contended that defendants failed or refused to revise…”
Candeliere v. United States, 816 F. Supp. 994 (D.N.J. 1992).
“April 27, 1992 and thereafter, on April 29, 1992 signed an Order directing, inter alia: [t]hat a Resolution or Resolutions approving the settlement agreed to on February 26, 1992 and providing for the payment thereof be placed on the agenda for a vote at the May 5, 1992 meeting…”
1650 Corp. Road West, LLC v. the Twp. Comm. of the Twp. of Lakewood (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026).
· cites it 2× “In count eight, plaintiff alleges the Board failed to provide adequate notice of its November 15 and November 29, 2022 meetings under N.J.S.A. 10:4-9. It claims the meeting agendas simply stating "ordinance for review" lacked the required specificity.”
— N.J. Stat. § 10:4-9(a) — 5 cases
Fox v. Twp. of Jackson, 64 F. App'x 338 (3rd Cir. 2003).
“N.J.S.A. 10:4-9(a) of the Open Public Meetings Act provides: “Except as provided by Subsection B of this section, or for any meeting limited only to consideration of items listed in Section 7B no public body shall hold a meeting unless adequate notice thereof has been provided…”
1650 Corp. Road West, LLC v. the Twp. Comm. of the Twp. of Lakewood (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026).
“In count eight, plaintiff alleges the Board failed to provide adequate notice of its November 15 and November 29, 2022 meetings under N.J.S.A. 10:4-9. It claims the meeting agendas simply stating "ordinance for review" lacked the required specificity.”
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.