noting that motion for stay of order invalidating N.J.S.A. § 17:15A-41(e) as unconstitutional was denied by Appellate Division
How later courts described this case
- noting that motion for stay of order invalidating N.J.S.A. § 17:15A-41(e) as unconstitutional was denied by Appellate Division
- applying the due process analysis utilized by federal courts in an action challenging a distance requirement contained within the New Jersey Check Cashers Regulatory Act
- “When the means chosen bear a rational relationship to a legitimate state objective and are not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, courts will sustain a legislative enactment.” (citing Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 487-88, 75 S.Ct. 461, 464, 99 L.Ed. 563, 571-72 (1955))
- “In cases raising substantive due process claims under our state constitution, this Court uses the ‘standards developed by the United States Supreme Court under the federal Constitution.’” (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. State, 590 A.2d 191, 198 (N.J. 1991))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEIN, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
With one exception, I join in the opinion of the Court. Although sympathetic to plaintiffs position, I find no principled basis on which to sustain the statute and preserve plaintiffs license. Accordingly, I would uphold the statute and invalidate the license.
For reversal — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG and VERNIERO — 5.
Opposed — None.