# De Vesa v. Dorsey

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · December 23, 1993 · 134 N.J. 420

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752050

## Case

- **Full name:** Fred De Vesa Acting Attorney General of New Jersey; Hon. Marianne Espinosa Murphy, J.S.C.; John H. Adler, a Member of the Senate of the State of New Jersey, and Wilbur C. Hantel, a Citizen of New Jersey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Edward T. O’connor, Jr., a Member of the Senate of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. John H. Dorsey, Individually and as a Member of the Senate of the State of New Jersey; Donald Di Francesco, Individually and as President and Member of the Senate of the State of New Jersey; William L. Gormley, Individually and as Chair of the Judiciary Committee and Member of the Senate of the State of New Jersey; And the Following Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Severally and Individually; John O. Bennett, James S. Cafiero, John E. Dimon, John a Girgenti, Louis F. Kosco, Robert Martin, Bradford S. Smith, and Raymond J. Zane (Collectively the “primary Defendants”), Defendants-Respondents, and the Following Members of the Senate of the State of New Jersey Severally and Individually, C. Louis Bassano, Dr. Gerald Cardinale, Andrew R. Ciesla, Randy Corman, John H. Ewing, C. William Haines, Peter A. Inverso, Joseph M. Kyrillos, Jr., Richard J. La Rossa, Robert E. Littell, John J. Matheussen, Henry F. Mc ñamara, Joseph A. Palaia, William E. Schluter, John F. Scott, and Jack G. Sinagra (Collectively the “other Interested Defendants”), Defendants, and Richard J. Codey, Thomas F. Cowan, Matthew Feldman, Bernard F. Kenny Jr., Raymond J. Lesniak, Wy-Nona M. Lipman, John A. Lynch, Walter Rand, and Ronald L. Rice, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** December 23, 1993
- **Citations:** 134 N.J. 420; 634 A.2d 493; 1993 N.J. LEXIS 1311
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Pollock, Handler
- **Cited by:** 80 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752050

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “the validity of the exercise of senatorial courtesy . . . does not implicate the privilege accorded to legislators under the [New Jersey Constitution’s] Speech and Debate Clause.”
- affirming, by an equally divided court, dismissal of complaint challenging exercise of “senatorial courtesy,” defining practice as “an unwritten, informal, and unofficial procedure allowing a single senator who resides in or represents any portion of the county in which a nomi…
- recognizing it is firmly established that controversies which have become moot or academic prior to judicial resolution ordinarily will be dismissed
- explaining that an appellate court "normally will not entertain cases when a controversy no longer exists"
- holding "[a] case is technically moot when the [] issue presented has been resolved, at least concerning the parties who initiated the litigation"

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Mercer County, is affirmed. The members of the Court being equally divided on the grounds for affirmance, the Court has filed no majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752050. Public record. Not legal advice.