Notable Cases

New Jersey’s 1947 Constitution created a court system capable of responding to the needs of New Jersey’s citizens, and to changes in our society. For more than seven decades, New Jersey’s Supreme Court has gained recognition nationally among state high courts for its timely, prudent and well-conceived innovations to the common law.

The common law, like other judicial principles, arises out of court rulings resolving controversies presented to courts by people in search of a solution. Individuals and others, ordinarily with the help of lawyers, select the issues to present to a court. In effect, the common law results from judicial decisions resolving those issues case-by-case. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized the need for, and benefits of, Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) programs as a means of encouraging dispositions of litigation, both before and after a complaint is filed, in an expeditious, less costly and convenient manner. Both arbitration and mediation are recognized and encouraged by court rules and case law development. The Supreme Court has established a court ordered mediation program under Rule 1:40 whereby civil cases are sent to a mediator on the court roster of approved mediators, following required education and certification, to conduct a confidential mediation prior to more formal court proceedings in the adversarial context. The mediator is required to give the parties one free hour of time for preparation and one free hour during the mediation as a means of serving the parties. A mediation can resolve the case only if the parties agree to the disposition.  

An arbitration resolves the matter based on presentation of the parties and decision by the arbitrator. There are court rules, R.4:21A, regarding mandatory and voluntary arbitration of certain types of cases with de novo review by the courts thereafter, if desired. 

The first New Jersey constitution, adopted in 1776, was a brief document setting up the structure of the government. As with the federal constitution adopted in 1789, it did not include a list of personal rights. Although the federal constitution swiftly remedied this omission, it was not until New Jersey’s second constitution, adopted in 1844, that New Jersey set forth an explicit listing of a criminal defendant’s rights. These included the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the right to have a grand jury determine whether there was sufficient evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against a defendant; the right to be tried by a jury, in proceedings that were speedy and public; and the right not to be placed in criminal jeopardy twice for the same offense. This explicit listing was continued in our 1947 constitution.

Although New Jersey has recognized these rights as constitutionally required for more than 170 years, it is only recently that our Supreme Court has looked to our own constitution to assess whether a defendant’s rights have been protected. For many years it was guided by the approach taken by the United States Supreme Court, which originally held the view that the provisions of the federal Bill of Rights governed proceedings in the federal court but were not applicable to proceedings in state courts. That view changed dramatically in the 1960s when the United States Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that certain of these rights were indeed applicable in state court proceedings. It did so by utilizing the incorporation doctrine, ruling that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated certain of the federally-guaranteed rights of the first ten amendments. The Supreme Court’s process of incorporation was incremental, rather than blanket. 

Incumbent upon civilized society is an underlying obligation to provide properly for the education of its citizenry. Without such an education, members of society lack one of the only means available to social and economic advancement. The citizens of New Jersey recognize that principle, and it is incorporated into the state’s 1947 Constitution. Article VIII, §4, paragraph 1 states, “The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a through and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.”

Implementing that important public policy has proven to be challenging over the years. The New Jersey Supreme Court has revisited this issue of “thorough and efficient” education for close to fifty years. In large part the problems have been the sources of funding and quality of education provided in various school districts. The Court has been at the center of the funding issue.  

The Court has also examined other issues bearing a correlation to the education of New Jersey’s residents. The cases that touch on education issues are far ranging. Examples include school busing, the interplay between private and public schools, and labor relationships within the school district. The Court has also addressed quasi-criminal matters involving the rights of students. The importance of these issues is evident from the breadth and depth of the Supreme Court’s involvement. The following is a sampling of key cases involving education.

The New Jersey Supreme Court consistently has been at the forefront of matters involving family relationships. The issues it has addressed have been as varied as human nature itself. As early as 1971, the Court corrected the course that family law had been on and recognized the notion of marriage as a shared enterprise in which the spouse’s contributions are to be valued equally. Khalaf v. Khalaf, 58 N.J. 63 (1971). It went on to uphold the constitutionality of the equitable distribution statute, Painter v. Painter, 65 N.J. 196 (1974) and identified a non-vested pension plan with future monetary benefits earned during the marriage as within the marital estate. Kikkert v. Kikkert, 88 N.J. 4 (1981).

In addition, recognizing that all relationships entitled to protection are not traditional marriages, the Court declared that committed same-sex couples must be afforded the same rights and benefits enjoyed by married opposite sex couples, Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006) and permitted the enforcement of financial agreements between unmarried parties living together based on promises that had been made and expectations developed. Kozlowski v. Kozlowski, 80 N.J. 378 (1979). 

Up to the mid 20th century, citizens could not generally sue towns when they were injured or refused to carry out contracts. Now, such municipal immunity has largely disappeared as to contract and tort claims against municipal entities. So the law covering these kinds today of cases resembles the case law set forth in the sections on torts and contracts.  

But some subjects remain unique to local government. What is the origin of home rule? Where do our towns get their right to pass ordinances that regulate people and businesses? When is local initiative barred by uniform state law?  Case law also enforces statutes governing citizens’ rights to attend public meetings and gain access to public records. And case law also governs the fairness of property tax assessments and the integrity of local officials.  

The general trend in the law has been to give local governments more authority to undertake initiatives on behalf of their citizens. When in doubt, the Supreme Court has given the go ahead to local regulations, unless they violate some specific constitutional right, like the right to free speech or equality before the law or interfere with the requirements of a state statute. For example, over the past decades, the Court has authorized local rent control, requirements for soil removal or regulation of firearms discharge. In this way our Court has been quite supportive of local home rule. 

“Contractor sues Starbuck’s CEO after slipping on mansion floor.” “Trespassing teenager falls through skylight, sues property owner.” “Supermarket sued by shopper mugged in parking lot.” Headlines such as these while not common demonstrate the importance of Premise Liability Law in New Jersey. Simply because an accident occurred does not mean that the property or business owner is responsible for the injuries. What rights does a person have when entering onto another’s property? What duty should be imposed on the property owner?  Everyone has walked into a business, traveled over public sidewalks, been invited to a neighbor’s house, and perhaps engaged in an occasional trespass. All these routine activities have the potential of placing an individual in foreseeable harm. It follows that the law impose corresponding protections. The New Jersey Supreme Court initially confronted these questions by applying Common Law principles.  

Under Common Law a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty of care that was breached by the property owner, causing injury to plaintiff. Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36 (2015). To determine if a duty existed the Court examined the relationship between the property owner and the person entering the premises. Why was this person there? Was a benefit conferred on the owner by the person or were both parties mutually benefited? Identifying the status of the parties became a determinative factor in establishing the duty. The extent of the duty depended on 2  whether the person entering the property was a business invitee, social guest (also referred to as a licensee) or trespasser.  

In few areas of the law has the New Jersey Supreme Court advanced the common law so definitively as in the field of product liability. Leading the way in the nation, our state Supreme Court re-prioritized society’s agenda to promote product safety, by providing a legal remedy to the consumers of defective goods.

The modern law of Product Liability began as a response to transformative changes in the production and marketing of consumer goods during the first decades of the 20th Century. The small manufacturer whose products were personally inspected and selected by a series of individual buyers was replaced by the mass marketer. The buyer who was able to select both the manufacturer and the particular goods was replaced by the passive consumer who bought out of stock, knew nothing about production, nor was in a position to influence it. Moreover, people who suffered damage when mass marketed goods turned out to be defective were at an increasing disadvantage in their ability to be compensated for their loss. 

Under Article VI, section II, paragraph 3 of the 1947 State Constitution, the New Jersey Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to make Rules governing “the administration of all courts in the State,” governing “practice and procedure in all such courts,” and exercises “jurisdiction over the admission to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted.”  

The New Jersey system for admission and discipline of attorneys is governed by the Court rules and not by bar associations or other entities. It is a system unique to New Jersey. The Supreme Court has established procedures to assure the qualification of attorneys admitted to practice in the state and regarding their character and fitness. It has also established a comprehensive system for the discipline of attorneys through local district ethics committees or Special Ethics Masters who hear disciplinary cases.

The people of New Jersey have, in fact, two constitutions that provide for their governance and protect their rights. First, is the more familiar United States Constitution. Like the people in all fifty states, however, New Jerseyans also have their own state constitution that provides additional constitutional rules applicable only in their state. New Jersey has had its own state constitution since 1776, and with numerous changes, modifications, and additions over the years, this has led to our current New Jersey state constitution. The New Jersey Supreme Court has the final say on the meaning and application of our state constitution.

When a contested court case raises a question regarding an interpretation of a provision of the state constitution, or how it applies to the facts of the case, the court must apply or interpret the constitution in order to decide the case. Such judicial decisions not only decide the specific case before the court but also serve as precedents to be applied to future questions regarding the meaning of that state constitutional provision. These judge-made interpretations, together with the text of the constitution itself, constitute the state constitutional law of our state. While these constitutional precedents are not written in stone, at times albeit highly unlikely, they can be overturned by future courts. Finally, it is in the area of constitutional law that courts are often called upon to protect a fundamental right of a citizen that has yet to be addressed by the legislature. When elected officials are unable to act, the courts are the only recourse available to the public.