# Stomel v. City of Camden

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · July 25, 2007 · 192 N.J. 137

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862756

## Case

- **Full name:** Elliot S. Stomel, Plaintiff-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. the City of Camden, Gwendolyn Faison and the Camden City Council, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Respondents, and Mayor Milton Milan and John Doe(s) 1-10, Individually, Jointly and/or in the Alternative, Defendants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** July 25, 2007
- **Citations:** 192 N.J. 137; 927 A.2d 129; 26 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 705; 2007 N.J. LEXIS 909
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Rivera-Soto
- **Judges:** Lavecchia, Rivera-Soto
- **Cited by:** 30 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/9862756

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that "a municipality generally cannot be held liable in a § 1983 action for the acts of employees under the principle of respondeat superior" unless "an official municipal 'policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly b…
- explaining the circumstances under which a municipality can be held liable for the civil rights violations of its employees
- finding a municipal public defender was required to "exercise independent professional judgment" without city supervision
- applying D’Annunzio test in extending CEPA protection to legal professional serving as public defender

## Opinion text

*157 Justice RIVERA-SOTO,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In respect of plaintiff Elliot Stomel’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Camden and its City Council, I concur with both the reasoning and result set forth in parts I and II of the majority’s opinion.
However, to the extent the majority, in part III of the majority’s opinion, resurrects plaintiffs claims against the City and City Council pursuant to the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8, I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissent in D’Annunzio v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 192 N.J. 110, 127-37 , 927 A.2d 113, 123-29 (2007), also decided today.
For reversal in Part II — Chief Justice ZAZZALI and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS — 7.
For affirmance in Part III — Chief Justice ZAZZALI and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, WALLACE and HOENS — 6.
For reversal in Part III — Justices RIVERA-SOTO — 1.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9862756. Public record. Not legal advice.