Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Foglio

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided July 19, 2011Published

1DissentJustice LaVECCHIA

I respectfully dissent because I believe the majority has introduced a new rigidity to the operation of the “Rule of Three,” see N.J.S.A. llA:4-8, undermining its role in affording appointing authorities discretion to appoint from among the top three persons certified as eligible for appointment to a civil service position. Indeed, the majority and I have different views as to the nature of the Rule of Three and the manner in which it is to be implemented. Whereas I see the Rule of Three as a legislative mechanism that fundamentally enables a practicable scheme of merit-based appointments,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bergen Pines County Hospital v. New Jersey Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  2. In Re Election Law Enforcement Commission Advisory Opinion No. 01-2008Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
  3. Terry v. MERCER CTY. BD. OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  4. In Re CrowleyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
  5. Bauter v. Hanover Insurance CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1991

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API