As reported by NJ.com, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling wherein video of New Jersey Police Officers chasing down and arresting suspects will not be turned over to the public and the media in many cases. A divided Supreme Court ruled 4-3  in the matter entitled Paff v. Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office

As reported by the New Jersey Law Journal, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently clarified the meaning of the term “undesigned and unexpected” event as it pertains to qualifying for accidental disability retirement benefits for a mental disability in the case of Mount v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System. In the

As reported by the New Jersey Law Journal, the New Jersey Supreme Court has taken up the issue of whether a volunteer firefighter who was injured while responding to a fire should be awarded workers’ compensation benefits. The firefighter, Jennifer Kocanowski, is seeking to overturn an Appellate Division decision determining that, since she was

This past week the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that dashboard recordings and use-of-force reports generated in connection with the fatal police shooting of a man who led officers on a high speed chase through several North Jersey towns are public records and thus subject to disclosure under the New Jersey Open Public Records Act. 

As reported by NJ.com, Moody’s Investors Service again sent up a warning flare that a possible New Jersey Supreme Court ruling striking down cuts to public retirees’ pension benefits would soak the struggling retirement system with new pension liabilities.  But in its latest report released on the “extraordinary decisions and challenges” the Garden State

As reported by NJ.com, State Senate President Stephen Sweeney and labor leaders defended Sweeney’s proposal to constitutionally enforce payments into the public pension system against arguments it’s a gift to special interests that will shackle New Jersey’s finances.  The scrap between Sweeney and labor leaders versus Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean, Jr. and business

As reported by NJ.com, a key State Senate Committee approved legislation to ask voters to revise the New Jersey Constitution to require the State to ratchet up contributions to the public pension system.  The Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee cleared the resolution along party lines, with Republicans’ opposition rooted in protecting taxpayers from severe

As reported by nj.com, a divided State Supreme Court said judges and justices don’t have to chip in more for their pension and health benefits like other state workers because New Jersey’s Constitution prevents them from having their pay cut. The 3-2 decision drew swift responses from the leaders of New Jersey’s two other branches of government, which last year enacted a law requiring higher contributions from state workers.

Governor Chris Christie called it a case of “liberal activist judges running amok” while Democrats who run the state Legislature said they may ask voters to change the state constitution to force judges to pay more. The state’s bar association, however, called it a win for judicial independence, saying judges “will remain free from political retaliation when judges make an unpopular but just decision.”

The highly anticipated decision, which affects most of the more than 375 Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices who were on the bench when the law went into effect, strikes at a key component of Christie’s effort to trim spending on employee salaries and benefits and stabilize pension plans.

The Court said making judges contribute more for their benefits constitutes a pay cut, and that the state Constitution forbids the other branches from reducing judges’ salaries to make sure they are not punished for making unpopular decisions. “Whatever good motivation the Legislature may have had when enacting (the law) with its broad application to all state public employees, the framers’ message is clear,” the Court said. “The constitution forbids the reduction of a justice or judge’s take-home salary during the term of his or her appointment.”

Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale brought the challenge, saying his pension and health contributions would increase by more than five times after a seven-year phase in. The State argued health benefits and pensions are part of a total compensation package and should not be considered as salary. But the majority of the justices said the terms “salary” and “compensation” were used interchangeably by the framers of the state Constitution and every time lawmakers imposed pension requirements on judges, it included a corresponding pay raise.


Continue Reading