Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Garrow v. Elizabeth General Hospital and Dispensary

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 15, 1979Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partPashman, J.

Although I am fully in agreement with the result reached by the major*569ity and with its reasoning as to the procedural rights to he accorded plaintiff at the hospital hearing, I respectfully disagree with its conclusion as to exhaustion of remedies. In my view, the policies protected by that generally salutary doctrine are not adequately implicated in these circumstances so as to outweigh plaintiff’s right to immediate judicial intervention.

Courts are generally agreed that a plaintiff’s challenge to the validity of an agency’s procedures is not subject to the exhaustion doctrine. See, e. g.,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. McKart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Mathews v. DiazSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. United States v. Billy Ray HuffCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
  5. A. Ernest Fitzgerald v. Robert E. Hampton, Chairman of United States Civil Service CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972

9 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