| | ''In re McCabe'', 81 N.J. 462, 465, 409 A.2d 1158, 1159-60 (1980) was a 3-2 decision (remarkably, only 5 justices participated in this decision, but there are many precedents for that) by the [[New Jersey Supreme Court]] on: | | ''In re McCabe'', 81 N.J. 462, 465, 409 A.2d 1158, 1159-60 (1980) was a 3-2 decision (remarkably, only 5 justices participated in this decision, but there are many precedents for that) by the [[New Jersey Supreme Court]] on: |
| | {{cquote|The application herein, dated May 5, 1978, brought by more than two citizens of the State, asserted that Chapter 84, Laws of 1977, which supplemented the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq., by adding sections 13, 14 and 15, 1 is special legislation not enacted in accordance with the notice requirements of N.J.Const., Art. IV, § VII, par. 8 and N.J.S.A. 1:6-1 et seq. In addition it was asserted that the legislation violated N.J.Const., Art. IV, § VII, par. 7 by adding provisions of a private and special character to a general law.}} | | {{cquote|The application herein, dated May 5, 1978, brought by more than two citizens of the State, asserted that Chapter 84, Laws of 1977, which supplemented the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq., by adding sections 13, 14 and 15, 1 is special legislation not enacted in accordance with the notice requirements of N.J.Const., Art. IV, § VII, par. 8 and N.J.S.A. 1:6-1 et seq. In addition it was asserted that the legislation violated N.J.Const., Art. IV, § VII, par. 7 by adding provisions of a private and special character to a general law.}} |
| | + | This case concerned special legislation (also called private legislation) enacted in violation of N.J.Const., Art. IV, § VII, par. 7: "[n]o general law shall embrace any provision of a private, special or local character." ''In re McCabe'', 81 N.J. 462, 466-67, 409 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1980). |
| | The Court considered that "[t]he sole issue is whether the 1977 supplement is a private or special law. If so, it is void because it is violative of N.J.Const., Art. IV, § VII, par. 7." ''In re McCabe'', 81 N.J. 462, 467, 409 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1980). | | The Court considered that "[t]he sole issue is whether the 1977 supplement is a private or special law. If so, it is void because it is violative of N.J.Const., Art. IV, § VII, par. 7." ''In re McCabe'', 81 N.J. 462, 467, 409 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1980). |