N.J. Stat. » Title 32 — INTERSTATE AND PORT AUTHORITIES AND COMMISSIONS
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 32:3-1 (2026)

Preamble; agreement

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The New Jersey Interstate Bridge Commission, existing by virtue of chapter 271 of the Laws of New Jersey of 1929, approved May 6, 1929, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, is hereby authorized to enter into a compact or agreement on behalf of the state of New Jersey with the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in substantially the following form, that is to say:

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

CREATING THE DELAWARE RIVER JOINT COMMISSION AS A BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC AND DEFINING ITS POWERS AND DUTIES

Whereas, The commonwealth of Pennsylvania and he [the] state of New Jersey are the owners of a certain bridge across the Delaware river between the city of Philadelphia in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the city of Camden in the state of New Jersey; and

Whereas, The Pennsylvania commission, existing by virtue of Act No. 338 of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, approved July 9, 1919 (Pamphlet Laws 814), and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, and the New Jersey Interstate Bridge Commission, existing by virtue of chapter 271 of the Laws of New Jersey of 1929, and acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, are acting jointly under the name of the Delaware River Bridge Joint Commission in connection with the operation and maintenance of said bridge; and

Whereas, The interests of the people of the two states will be best served by consolidating the two commissions in corporate form and granting additional powers and authority thereto with reference to the said bridge and to other and further means of communication between the two states in the vicinity of Philadelphia and Camden; and

Whereas, Additional transportation facilities between the two states in the vicinity of Philadelphia and that part of New Jersey opposite thereto will be required in future for the accommodation of the public and the development of both states; and

Whereas, Both states have mutual interests in the development of the Delaware river from Philadelphia and Camden to the sea and particularly in developing the facilities and promoting the more extensive use of the ports of Philadelphia and Camden by coastwise, intercoastal and foreign vessels; and

Whereas, It is highly desirable that there be a single agency of both states empowered to further the aforesaid interests of both states:

Now, Therefore, The commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the state of New Jersey do hereby solemnly covenant and agree each with the other, as follows:

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1949–2022 · leading case: Holt Cargo Sys., Inc. v. Delaware River Port Auth., 20 F. Supp. 2d 803 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Holt Cargo Sys., Inc. v. Delaware River Port Auth., 20 F. Supp. 2d 803 (E.D. Pa. 1998). · cites it 2× “36, § 3503; N.J. Stat. Ann. § 32:3-1 , et seq. Congress and the President approved the Amended Compact on October 27, 1992.”
Ingerman v. Delaware River Port Auth., 630 F. Supp. 2d 426 (D.N.J. 2009). · cites it 4× “See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 32:3-1 ; 36 P.S. § 3503 (“a single agency of both States”).”
Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., 82 F. Supp. 975 (D.N.J. 1949). · cites it 2× “, in that the said amendment of 1948 is an abrogation and violation of the compact or agreement made between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey creating the Delaware River Joint Commission as a body corporate and politic, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 32:3-1…”
Max Pievsky v. Thomas J. Ridge, in His Capacity as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 98 F.3d 730 (3d Cir. 1996). “3, Congress originally consented to the terms of the Compact in 1932 and thereafter consented to amendments in 1952 and 1992.”
Alpha Painting & Constr. Co. v. Delaware River Port Auth. of Pennsylvania, 208 F. Supp. 3d 607 (D.N.J. 2016). “Defendant Delaware River Port Authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey (“DRPA”) is a public entity authorized by Congress and created by an interstate compact between the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“DRPA Compact”),…”
Stinson v. Delaware River Port Auth., 935 F. Supp. 531 (D.N.J. 1996). · cites it 2× “See N.J.S.A. §§ 32:3-1 to 3-2. In addition, the DRPA is administered by commissioners, all of whom are appointed by the Governor of either New Jersey or Pennsylvania, see N.”
Moore v. Delaware River Port Auth., 80 F. Supp. 2d 264 (D.N.J. 1999). “N.J.S.A. 32:3-1, et seq.; Pa. Stat. Ann. Tit.”
Peters v. Delaware River Port Auth., 809 F. Supp. 13 (E.D. Pa. 1992). “§ 3503; N.J.S.A. 32:3-1 et seq. (the “Compact”). The DRPA was created in 1931, among other things, to operate and maintain the bridges owned jointly by Pennsylvania and New Jersey across the Delaware River and between the cities of Philadelphia and Camden.”
Delaware River Port Auth. v. Thornburgh, 459 A.2d 717 (Pa. 1983). “or obligations remain outstanding and unpaid, and unless and until adequate provision is made by law for the protection of those advancing money upon such obligations) the Commonwealth and the said State will not diminish or impair the power of the commission to own, operate or…”
Champion Painting Specialty Servs. Corp. v. Delaware River Port Auth. of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania & the State of New Jersey, No. 1:21-cv-10146 (D.N.J. June 28, 2021). “Defendant DRPA is a public entity authorized by Congress and created by an interstate compact between the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“DRPA Compact”), enabled by N.J.S.A. 32:3-1 et seq. and Pa. Cons. Stat.”
Keystone Outdoor Advert. Co., Inc. v. Sec'y of the Pennsylvania Dep't of Transp., No. 2:19-cv-05951 (E.D. Pa. July 18, 2022). “; N.J.S.A. 32:3-1 et seq. Pursuant to the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, Art.”
Pievsky v. Ridge, No. 96-7206 (3d Cir. Oct. 16, 1996). “3, Congress originally consented to the terms of the Compact in 1932 and thereafter consented to amendments in 1952 and 1992.”
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.