From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walsh v. State

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 5, 1997
147 N.J. 595 (N.J. 1997)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

adopting Judge Skillman's dissent as the opinion of the Court

Summary of this case from Crane v. Yurick
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

Argued February 19, 1997 —

Decided March 5, 1997.

On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 290 N.J. Super. 1, 674 A.2d 988 (1996).

Lewis A. Scheindlin, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant ( Peter G. Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mary C. Jacobson, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Mr. Scheindlin and Perry L. Lattiboudere, Deputy Attorney General, on the briefs).

Matthew S. Rogers argued the cause for respondent ( Contant, Scherby Atkins, attorneys; Andrew T. Fede, on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is reversed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Skillman's dissenting opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 290 N.J. Super. 13, 674 A.2d 988 (1996).

For reversal — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN — 7.

Summaries of

Walsh v. State

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 5, 1997
147 N.J. 595 (N.J. 1997)

adopting Judge Skillman's dissent as the opinion of the Court

Summary of this case from Crane v. Yurick

affirming determination that implied-contract doctrine should not apply to public employee's action in view of at-will relationship created by statute

Summary of this case from Troy v. Rutgers University

affirming on basis of Appellate Division dissenting opinion that contract implied in fact is not enforceable because beyond legal authority of State official making promise

Summary of this case from Allen v. Fauver

In Walsh v. State, 147 N.J. 595, 689 A.2d 131, rev'd on dissent, 290 N.J. Super. 1, 13-17, 674 A.2d 988 (App.Div. 1996), the Supreme Court adopted our dissenting opinion refusing to enforce an agreement to promote an assistant deputy public defender, holding that the agreement was contrary to N.J.S.A. 2A:158A-6, which provided that holders of that position serve at the pleasure of the public defender and receive the salary he or she designates.

Summary of this case from Dipaolo v. Passaic Bd. Freeholders
Case details for

Walsh v. State

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN P. WALSH, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Mar 5, 1997

Citations

147 N.J. 595 (N.J. 1997)
689 A.2d 131

Citing Cases

Golden v. County of Union

The trial court denied that motion as well. Subsequent to the disposition of those initial motions, this…

Merlino v. Borough of Midland Park

Like other aspects of public employment, statutory terms and conditions of employment take precedence over…

22 Citing Cases