Court Opinion

ID: 9542102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:31:12.945764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:12.045018
License: Public Domain

O’HERN, J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
With but one exception, I concur in the well-reasoned opinion of the majority. Adhering to views that I expressed in dissent in Woodland Private Study Group v. State, 109 N.J. 62, 76 (1987), I do not join that portion of Part II of the majority opinion that would require the agency to enact regulations prior to exercising its governmental power to permit prepayment of its mortgage. Would we say that the exercise of judgment by the board of directors of a commercial lender with respect to prepayment of a mortgage would be arbitrary unless it has written regulations in place before it exercises its judgment? Why must government always have paper in place before it acts? See Smith, “Judicialization: The Twilight of Administrative Law,” 1985 Duke L.J. 427 (administrative process has become so formalized that it has lost sight of original goal of effectuating governmental policy).
*245O’HERN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For affirmance in part and reversal in pari—Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, GARIBALDI and STEIN—5.
Opposed—None.