Legal Opinion
W.P. v. Poritz
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 15, 1996No. Civil Action 96-97PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BISSELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action. The present action was filed on January 16, 1996. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the Community Notification Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 et seq., (Megan’s Law). (First Amended Complaint, hereinafter “Compl.” at 9-10)
Plaintiffs claim that Megan’s Law violates the ex post facto and double jeopardy clauses of the United States Constitution. (Compl., ¶¶ 35, 39) By Order of this Court on January 16, 1996, and subsequent Orders, the defendant has been enjoined…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Nos. 96-5132, 96-5416Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Tesmer v. GranholmCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- E.B. v. Verniero (Part I)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Benevento v. Life USA Holding, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2000
- ALAN A. v. VernieroDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.