N.J. Stat. § 2B:10-2

Findings, declarations

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2. The Legislature finds and declares that:

a. The current method of financing the State's judicial system has created undue hardship for both the counties and the courts.

b. The counties have had to balance the financial needs of the judicial system with the need to provide essential county services and have been denied any oversight over court operations.

c. As a result of the differing funding bases among the counties, the courts have varying levels of resources available in order to fulfill their responsibilities.

d. Those differing bases and varying levels of available resources have significantly hindered the development and implementation of a unified administrative system for the courts.

e. If the State were to assume the administrative costs of the judicial system, resources would be provided on a more equitable basis and a central management system could be established by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

f. Furthermore, significant property tax relief would be afforded to the citizens of this State since the counties would no longer need to generate tax revenues currently required to finance the judicial system.

g. It is, therefore, altogether fitting and proper for the State to assume the cost of the judicial system in order to unify the administrative system and to provide property tax relief.

Notes of Decisions
Ronald Chisolm v. Patrick McManimon Jr., Director of Mercer County Detention Center Mercer County Court, United States o (2001) ca3 “See N.J. Stat. § 2B:10-2 (2001) (describing county administration of county courts prior to the enactment of the SJUA).”
In Re Raphael (1999) njb “6, § 8, ¶ 1; N.J.S.A. 2B:10-2. This Act (and corresponding constitutional amendment) required the State to pay for all judicial costs, designated all judicial employees as employees of the State, and directed all judicial fees to be paid to the State treasury.”
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.