TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Corcoran v. McCarthy

WILLIAM J. CORCORAN, PROSECUTOR v. CHARLES J. McCARTHY, JUDGE OF THE FIRST CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BERGEN COUNTY

Corcoran v. McCarthy, 149 A. 765 (N.J. 1930)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 14, 1930
Judges
Cubiam
Citations
149 A. 7658 N.J. Misc. 2811930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 247

Opinion of the Court — Cubiam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Cubiam.

This writ of certiorari brings up the order of removal of the prosecutor, clerk of the Eirst Criminal Judicial District Court of Bergen county, made by the judge of that court, and also the “approval” thereof by the judge of the Quarter Sessions Court of such county.

The act under which the prosecutor held as clerk is chapter 204 of Pamph. L. 1926, § 13, of which provides among other things as follows:

“Every such clerk appointed as aforesaid shall hold office during good behavior and shall be removed for cause only after an opportunity to be heard respecting the cause assigned for removal, and such order for removal shall not be effective and operative until such proceedings are reviewed and approved by the judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions,” &c.

*282 We think the order of removal must be set aside because no “opportunity to be heard respecting the cause assigned for removal” was given the clerk.

The record discloses that on March 30th, 1929, the clerk was served with notice of his removal from his position as clerk, effective April 1st, 1929, signed by the judge of such District Court, and attached to such notice of removal was a statement of the fifteen “reasons” for such removal. No notice of hearing upon such “reasons” was given to the clerk, nor was any hearing had upon such “reasons.” On May 3d, 1929, there was what is claimed to have been a “review,” before the judge of Quarter Sessions, of such order of removal. But no notice of such review was given to the clerk, nor did he have knowledge of the proceedings.

Both the order of removal and the approval thereof will be set aside, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1943: 119432026peak 1943 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Martini v. Civil Service Commission30 A.2d 569 (N.J. 1943)

Most recent

  1. Martini v. Civil Service Commission30 A.2d 569 (N.J. 1943)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list