Warren, Matter of
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 117 N.J. 295,566 A.2d 534 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1989 |
| Parties | In the Matter of John E. WARREN and Gerald Sowa. |
Page 295
Decided Dec. 4, 1989.
[566 A.2d 535]
Page 296
Carol A. Blasi, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant New Jersey Dept. of Corrections (Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney; Michael R. Clancy, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel).Robert A. Fagella, for respondent John E. Warren (Zazzali, Zazzali, Fagella & Nowak, Newark, attorneys).
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on appeal as of right under Rule 2:2-1(a)(2) because of a disagreement among the Appellate Division members over whether the Merit System Board had properly determined that a period of suspension, and not removal, was the appropriate discipline for a prison guard. The dissent concerns only the discipline of John E. Warren, one of the parties charged.
All agree that a court may not contravene the Board's measure of discipline unless the court finds that the Board's action was arbitrary and capricious. This shorthand expression for the scope of judicial review really encompasses three inquiries: (1) whether the agency's action violates the enabling act's express or implied legislative policies; (2) whether there is
Page 297
substantial evidence in the record to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred by reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. Campbell v. Department of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562, 189 A.2d 712 (1963).A useful calculus for the first prong of this agency review test, violation of express or implied legislative policies, is the inquiry whether the decision "was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors * * * [or conversely] a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors." State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93, 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (guiding judicial supervision of an executive branch decision to admit a defendant to PTI).
In Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 410 A.2d 686 (1980), the Civil Service Commission (predecessor to the Merit System Board) was found to have acted arbitrarily in reducing a penalty from removal to a ninety-day suspension because it failed to consider a relevant factor, namely, the seriousness of a single instance of a State corrections officer's falsification of a report. Specifically, the Court found that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc.
...agency proceedings in the interest of justice. Wilson v. Mountainside, 42 N.J. 426, 442, 201 A.2d 540 (1964). See Matter of Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296-97, 566 A.2d 534 (1989); Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 71, 494 A.2d 804 (1985); Gloucester Cty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civ. Serv. C......
-
Board of Educ. of Borough of Englewood Cliffs, Bergen County v. Board of Educ. of City of Englewood, Bergen County
...581, 218 A.2d 630 (1966)). Such determinations must be accepted by us if supported by substantial credible evidence. Matter of Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296-97, 566 A.2d 534 (1989); In Re Petition of Hackensack Water Co., 249 N.J.Super. 164, 174, 592 A.2d [608 A.2d 939] 250 (App.Div.1991); Thom......
-
Karins v. City of Atlantic City
...should not disturb the agency's ruling unless it finds that the Board's action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In re Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296, 566 A.2d 534 (1989). Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the scope of judicial review is restricted to four (1) whether the age......
-
Brady v. Board of Review
...finds that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the agency's ruling should not be disturbed. See In re Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296, 566 A.2d 534 (1989). The Court "can intervene only in those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with ......
-
Petition of United Parcel Service, Inc.
...agency proceedings in the interest of justice. Wilson v. Mountainside, 42 N.J. 426, 442, 201 A.2d 540 (1964). See Matter of Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296-97, 566 A.2d 534 (1989); Barry v. Arrow Pontiac, Inc., 100 N.J. 57, 71, 494 A.2d 804 (1985); Gloucester Cty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civ. Serv. C......
-
Board of Educ. of Borough of Englewood Cliffs, Bergen County v. Board of Educ. of City of Englewood, Bergen County
...581, 218 A.2d 630 (1966)). Such determinations must be accepted by us if supported by substantial credible evidence. Matter of Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296-97, 566 A.2d 534 (1989); In Re Petition of Hackensack Water Co., 249 N.J.Super. 164, 174, 592 A.2d [608 A.2d 939] 250 (App.Div.1991); Thom......
-
Karins v. City of Atlantic City
...should not disturb the agency's ruling unless it finds that the Board's action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. In re Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296, 566 A.2d 534 (1989). Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the scope of judicial review is restricted to four (1) whether the age......
-
Brady v. Board of Review
...finds that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the agency's ruling should not be disturbed. See In re Warren, 117 N.J. 295, 296, 566 A.2d 534 (1989). The Court "can intervene only in those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with ......