Supreme Court of New Jersey

“ Second. The Supreme Court's review of the administrative act of assessing was judicial action. It is a court created by the Constitution; and its jurisdiction to review, on certiorari, proceedings of inferior tribunals is an inheritance from the Court of Kings Bench. The Supreme Court has broad powers. It may, as recited in the New Jersey Certiorari Act of 1903, as amended (1 Comp.St.N.J. 1910, p. 402 et seq., § 1 et seq., Comp.St.Supps.N.J. 1924, 1930, § 32-14) , 'determine disputed questions of fact, as well as of law' ”

“ It may act 'by depositions taken on notice, or in such other manner as is according to the practice of the court'; and it 'may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, such tax or assessment.' [12] Power to review the facts is conferred in New Jersey not only upon the Supreme Court but also upon its highest appellate tribunal-the Court of Errors and Appeals. Power, upon inquiry into the facts, to take evidence additional to that introduced before the tribunal whose action is under review is a power not uncommonly possessed by appellate courts in proceedings strictly judicial. ”

“ What petitioner asks us to do is to construe the laws of New Jersey for ourselves, hold that they give a writ of error to the supreme court, and discharge petitioner on the ground either that the courts of New Jersey have arrived at a different conclusion and denied the writ, or have granted it and refused to make it effectual. ”

“ The Superior Court shall consist of such number of judges as may be authorized by law, each of whom shall exercise the powers of the court subject to rules of the Supreme Court. The Superior Court shall at all times consist of at least two judges who shall be assigned to sit in each of the counties of this State, and who are resident therein at the time of appointment and reappointment. ”

“ Now we have additional judicial voices condemning such conduct-the unanimous opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Vanderbilt.
Our rule puts the burden upon respondent to show good cause why he should not be disbarred. Let us examine the reasons advanced as meeting that burden. It is said that respondent has already been punished enough for his contempt and that to disbar him is excessive, vindictive punishment. ”

“ Eminent counsel were retained and a determined effort was made to defeat or nullify the amendment in the courts. To this end suits were begun in various jurisdictions to test its validity and enjoin the enforcement of the Volstead Act, which sought to carry it into effect. Two sovereign states (Rhode Island and New Jersey) joined in the attack and through their respective Attorneys General brought original suits in the United States Supreme Court to have the amendment declared invalid. Seven test cases were argued together in the Supreme Court, five days in all being devoted to the argument. ”

“ Under the Compact, New York and New Jersey must agree if they want to make any “ [a] mendments and supplements.” Art. XVI (1) , 67 Stat. 557. The Compact also recognizes Congress’s authority to “alter, amend, or repeal” the Compact. Art. XVI, §2, ibid. But the Compact does not address each State’s power to unilaterally withdraw: It neither expressly allows nor expressly proscribes unilateral withdrawal. ”

“ The Court of Errors and Appeals is the Court of last resort in New Jersey, and by its judgment it reversed the Supreme Court finding which had theretofore held the Van Ness Act to be constitutional.
Mrs. Van Ness was a candidate for reëlection in the fall of 1921, but was not reëlected. Is there no significance in this fact?
As old as Magna Charta is the right of any citizen to a trial by jury, when convicted of a crime; and as old, too, as that sacred document, is the theory that one is innocent until proved guilty. ”

“ IV There remains the question of the legality of the search in this case. We recognize that the "reasonable grounds" standard applied by the New Jersey Supreme Court in its consideration of this question is not substantially different from the standard that we have adopted today. Nonetheless, we believe that the New Jersey court's application of that standard to strike down the search of T.L.O.'s purse reflects a somewhat crabbed notion of reasonableness. ”

“ It is not a judicial act to rectify a bad sale. Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Peters, 660.
All that class of laws which are held void as encroachments on the judicial departments of government, are aside the question. But aside from this, where there is no constitutional restriction, as in New Jersey, the legislature may, in some qualified degree, exercise judicial power, &c. 2 Root, 350; 3 Dal. 386; 3 Greenl. 334, and the acts hereinbefore cited, shows that New Jersey has always done so. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States against it. ”

“ If New Jersey can, consistent with the Constitution, make precisely the same differences in punishment turn on precisely the same facts, and can remove the assessment of those facts from the jury and subject them to a standard of proof below "beyond a reasonable doubt," it is impossible to say that the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments require the Court's rule. ”

“ In addition, time, place, and manner restrictions may also be imposed on expression if those [NJ590] restrictions are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and "leave open ample alternative channels of communication." Ibid. Those strictures, however, do not apply to speech or expression that is undertaken in a public forum, as exemplified by the Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood.
The Appellate Division was soundly guided on this issue by the Supreme Court. It ruled that the student newspaper, Pioneer Press, is not a public forum. 266 N.J. Super. ”

“ And equity even then would put them on terms.
Our constitution, July 2d, 1776, gives plenary powers of legislation. Nothing is reserved from their power except the rights of conscience and trial by jury.
New Jersey had no bill of rights. Her constitution did not even separate the legislative and judicial departments of government. There was no provision against interference with vested rights or against retrospective laws. ”

“ An intervenor whose state is already a party should have the burden of showing some compelling interest in his own right, apart from his interest in a class with all other citizens and creatures of the state, which interest is not properly represented by the state. See Com. of Kentucky v. State of Indiana, supra. Philadelphia has not met that burden and, therefore, even if her intervention would not amount to a suit against a state within the proscription of the Eleventh Amendment (and we do not intend to give any basis for implying that it does) , leave to intervene must be denied. ”

“ These are not before us now. A plaintiff cannot avail himself of the New Jersey forum and at the same time escape the terms on which it is made available, if the law is applicable to a federal court sitting in that State, which we later consider.
We conclude, therefore, that, so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, New Jersey's security statute is a valid law of that State and the question remains as to whether it must be applied by federal courts in that State to suits brought therein on diversity grounds. ”

“ The city, of course, is not an indispensable party, and it is generally bad policy to encumber any case with unnecessary intervenors. We have no doubt whatever that counsel for the Commonwealth will faithfully and able represent the interests of all of its inhabitants, including those of Philadelphia. Nonetheless, we would allow the intervention because of circumstances peculiar to this case. ”

“ City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.C.t. 839, 31 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1972) a "vagrancy" ordinance succumbed to the vagueness charge.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine has been applied to our Disorderly Persons Act prohibiting "loud and offensive or profane or indecent language" in a public place ( N.J.S.A. 2A:170-29) . In Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U.S. 901, 92 S.C.t. 2479, 33 L. Ed. 2d 321 (Decided June 26, 1972) the United States Supreme Court without opinion vacated the judgment of conviction of defendant on the basis of Cohen v. ”

“ The defendants respond with a motion to dismiss, on the ground, among others, that the bill does not present a case or controversy appropriate for the exertion of judicial power, but only an abstract question respecting the relative authority of Congress and the state in dealing with such waters. ”

“ Otherwise, a state might be judicially impeached on matters of policy by its own subjects, and there would be no practical limitation on the number of citizens, as such, who would be entitled to be made parties. ”

“ It is not denied that under the constitutional provision as to the judicial power, Congress might, if they had thought proper, have given to the Circuit Courts jurisdiction of all cases between citizens of one or more states on one side, and citizens of one or more other states on the other side, as, for example, a case in which some of the plaintiffs should be citizens of New York, and some of them citizens of New Jersey, and some of the defendants citizens of South Carolina, and some citizens of North Carolina. ”

“ Regulations, if not too difficult in the opinion of the court, are upheld, and likewise provisions that require a party to have cast a certain percentage of the vote at the last preceding election, before it may be entitled to an official ballot. Even forcing a citizen to choose between voting under an obnoxious party heading, or not at all, is, at least in New Jersey, viewed as no deprivation of his rights. ”