N.J. Stat. » Title 52 — STATE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICERS
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 52:14B-1 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Administrative Procedure Act."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 159 cases (64 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Veh. Comm'n, 189 A.3d 333 (N.J. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allstars Auto Grp., Inc. v. N.J. Motor Veh. Comm'n, 189 A.3d 333 (N.J. 2018). “The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -31, "provides a road map for navigating administrative proceedings" but -- with one exception not applicable here -- "does not create a substantive right to an administrative hearing.”
Ardan v. Bd. of Review, 177 A.3d 768 (N.J. 2018). “No notice-and-inquiry requirement appears in the regulation as currently drafted; such a mandate may be imposed only by rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -31. We concur with the Appellate Division panel, however, that in the…”
Johnson v. Guhl, 91 F. Supp. 2d 754 (D.N.J. 2000). · cites it 3× “Additionally, Plaintiffs argue in their motion for preliminary injunction, that Defendants’ “policy change” of viewing CSATs as a countable resource constitutes impermissible rule making that fails to comply with N.”
K.K. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 180 A.3d 732 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.”
Woodland Private Study Grp. v. State, 533 A.2d 387 (N.J. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 52:14B-1 to -15. In the Act, our Legislature balanced the need for procedural requirements of notice and hearing against the need for procedural flexibility in the administrative process by specifically excluding from the definition of "rule": "(1) statements concerning the…”
L.R. v. Camden City Pub. Sch. Dist. (080333)(Camden, Morris, & Somerset Counties & Statewide), 213 A.3d 912 (N.J. 2019). · cites it 2× ““The rulemaking procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, are designed to take advantage of the agencies’ resources and expertise.”
In Re Bayside Prison Litig., 190 F. Supp. 2d 755 (D.N.J. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 30:lB-24, and the NJ DOC had failed to promulgate such a policy, a prison handbook promulgated by the administrators of a specific prison which had not gone through the notice and comment procedure outlined in New Jersey’s Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 52:14B-1 et…”
Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 191 A.3d 643 (N.J. 2018). “] It directs the Commission to "promulgate, pursuant to the 'Administrative Procedure Act,' [ N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -31], rules and regulations to effectuate the purposes of" the Civil Service Act.”
Hi Tech Trans, LLC David Stoller v. State of New Jersey, Dep't of Env't Prot. Wolfgang Skacel, C.H.M.M. Bradley M. Campbell., 382 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2004). “New Jersey's Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1, sets forth the procedures to be followed in the initial adjudicatory phase of an administrative procedure wherein the NJDEP will exercise its quasi-judicial function to determine the allegations set forth in the…”
NYT CABLE TV v. Homestead at Mansfield, Inc., 543 A.2d 10 (N.J. 1988). · cites it 2× “In the event of the latter, the matter shall be handled in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq. and the rules of the Office of Administrative Law, N.”
Fund for Animals v. Mainella, 335 F. Supp. 2d 19 (D.D.C. 2004). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, the defendants contend that the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine does not apply because if black bear hunting is permitted in the future, the State of New Jersey will be required to promulgate a new regulation in accordance with the New Jersey…”
Floyd v. Hill (In re Hill), 495 B.R. 646 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 49:3-58(e)(3) and N.J.S.A. § 52:14B-1, et seq. The findings of fact embodied in the Summary Order which relate to Floyd’s Rule 10b-5 action against Hill for Floyd’s purchase of Hackensack Park Plaza securities (Complaint Count VI), and his purchase of SOS securities (Complaint…”
Show all 159 citing cases →
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.