This case concerned the admissibility of testimony refreshed through hypnosis in a criminal prosecution for sexual assault, where the victim had undergone hypnosis to enhance her recollection of the assailant's appearance after initially providing only a limited description. The New Jersey Supreme Court revisited its 1981 decision in State v. Hurd, which had permitted such testimony under specific procedural safeguards. The Court concluded that hypnotically refreshed testimony is generally inadmissible in criminal trials and overruled Hurd. Its reasoning rested on the determination that hypnosis can introduce distortions and false memories that existing guidelines cannot effectively detect or prevent, rendering the testimony unreliable for the truth-seeking process central to criminal justice. The Court noted that the prosecution here depended on the post-hypnotic identification, but held that concerns for accuracy outweighed its use.
The case concerned a former boarding student at the American Boychoir School who sued the school and its staff, alleging repeated sexual abuse by the music director and others from 1970 to 1971, along with the school's knowledge or negligence in hiring and supervision. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of summary judgment for the school, holding that the plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to proceed under both the Child Sexual Abuse Act (CSAA) and common-law tort claims. The court reasoned that the CSAA applies to institutions and not only natural persons, that the Charitable Immunity Act does not bar liability for intentional torts or CSAA claims, and that the two-year statute of limitations could be tolled pending a hearing on when the plaintiff discovered the basis for his claims.
The case concerned whether the public has a right to access a privately owned 480-foot stretch of dry sand beach in Lower Township, operated as a members-only club by Atlantis Beach Club under a 1907 riparian grant. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the public trust doctrine requires the beach to be opened to the general public at a reasonable fee for services, with fees and operations subject to approval by the Department of Environmental Protection. The decision applied the multi-factor test from Matthews v. Bay Head Improvement Ass'n, emphasizing the beach's location adjacent to public access points created under prior CAFRA permits for neighboring developments, the lack of alternative public beaches nearby, and the need to balance private ownership interests with traditional public rights to tidal lands and beaches. The court rejected Atlantis's claim of exclusive use, noting the property's history of public pathways and the state's regulatory oversight of coastal access.
The case concerned whether a private nonprofit corporation formed to redevelop city-owned land in Trenton, using tax-exempt bonds and subject to city approval of its board and plans, had to allow public access to its board meetings and minutes. The Times of Trenton sued Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp. under New Jersey's Open Public Meetings Act and Open Public Records Act after being denied entry and records. The court ruled that the corporation qualifies as a public body performing a governmental function and as an instrumentality created by a political subdivision, making both statutes applicable. The decision rested on the city's appointment and removal powers over most board members, the reversion of assets to the city upon debt retirement, and the entity's role in a city redevelopment plan under state law.
The case concerned whether the State of New Jersey was required to provide full state funding for preschool programs in certain Abbott school districts whose budgets had been approved by the Department of Education for the 2003-2004 school year. After the districts were notified they would receive less than the approved amounts, the Commissioner represented to the Court that any shortfalls covered by reallocating other district resources would be replaced through supplemental state aid unless the Department could show the funds were unnecessary. The Court upheld the State's funding approach on the basis of that representation, while noting that the process remained inefficient and urging the Department to align allocations directly with approved budgets from the outset. The decision drew on prior rulings in the Abbott litigation that required adequate funding for quality preschool programs in the designated districts.
This case concerned the Passaic Board of Education's challenge to the Commissioner of Education's mid-year reduction of Preschool Expansion Aid for the 2002-2003 school year, after actual preschool enrollment fell below projections, using a per-pupil methodology to recalculate aid. The court held that the Commissioner's per-pupil approach is permissible only when districts receive a meaningful opportunity to submit data on fixed costs that cannot be reduced and when the final adjustment aligns with actual program needs rather than estimates. The reasoning centered on the FY03 Appropriations Act's requirement that aid adjustments reflect documented actual need, the approved nature of initial preschool budgets, and the need to avoid detriment to required Abbott preschool programs from late-year recaptures.