In Re Freshwater Wetlands Permits

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that under the APA, a hearing right exists only for a non-applicant to a permit if that third party can demonstrate a particularized property interest of constitutional significance that is directly affected by an agency's permitting decision
• holding third- party objector to development application lacked particularized property interest warranting an adversarial hearing before an administrative law judge
• noting that even though owners of property in the vicinity of a property for which an application was made for a freshwater wetlands permit were not entitled to a trial-type hearing, they could secure \judicial review\ of that decision
• noting a need for one who has no statutory right to a trial-like hearing in the Office of Administrative Law to demonstrate an interest sufficient to require a hearing on constitutional grounds
• distinguishing between instances where a trial-type hearing before an agency or municipality is expressly provided for by statute and those where no such requirement is set forth by the Legislature
• classifying neighboring homeowners, who feared that their properties might be flooded if the DEP granted a developer a permit to fill wetlands within 200 feet of their homes, as \interested persons\ who were entitled under N.J.S.A. 52:14B-3.1a to present their opposition to the agency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).