From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Johnson

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 29, 1981
88 N.J. 26 (N.J. 1981)

Summary

stating that " great deference" was warranted to the Secretary of State, whose interpretation would not be overturned unless it was " manifestly corrupt, arbitrary or misleading"

Summary of this case from Nevada State Democratic Party v. Nevada Republican Party

Opinion

September 29, 1981.

Susan Green, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant-appellant ( Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).

Marc J. Friedman, Deputy Attorney General, for plaintiff-respondent ( James R. Zazzali, Attorney General, attorney).


ORDER

This matter having been duly considered on the record below and the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, 176 N.J. Super. 1, is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Coleman on the temporary remand to the Superior Court [ 87 N.J. 335] Law Division — Resentencing Panel, filed June 12, 1981, 182 N.J. Super. 1.


Summaries of

State v. Johnson

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 29, 1981
88 N.J. 26 (N.J. 1981)

stating that " great deference" was warranted to the Secretary of State, whose interpretation would not be overturned unless it was " manifestly corrupt, arbitrary or misleading"

Summary of this case from Nevada State Democratic Party v. Nevada Republican Party

In State v. Johnson, 88 N.J. 26 (1981), the Supreme Court cited with approval the factors listed by Judge Coleman in his dissent in State v. Johnson, 182 N.J. Super. 1, 8-9 (Resentencing Panel (1981)) (Coleman, J.S.C., dissenting), which govern the Panel's deliberations.

Summary of this case from State v. Smith
Case details for

State v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JAMES F. JOHNSON…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Sep 29, 1981

Citations

88 N.J. 26 (N.J. 1981)
438 A.2d 519

Citing Cases

Mckenzie v. Corzine

[Ibid.] Plaintiffs argue that this interpretive statement fails to meet the standards contained in N.J.S.A.…

Desanctis v. Borough of Belmar

Interpretive statements can be drafted in an infinite variety of ways, and the Legislature may simply have…