Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sahli v. Woodbine Board of Education

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided January 30, 2008Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Rivera-Soto

To the extent the majority holds that “N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6 does not mandate that [a board of education] indemnify its attorney for the defense of a civil action against him in his capacity as Board solicitor[,]” and that this Board attorney is not entitled to insurance coverage for his actions as Board solicitor, ante at 324, 938 A.2d at 925, I concur with the majority’s reasoning and result.

*328However, to the extent the majority also holds that “because the Board’s attorney in this case was also sued in his capacity as secretary pro tern to the Board, he is entitled to indemnification for his…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sahli v. Woodbine Bd. of Educ.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API