G.H. v. Township of Galloway
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- State v. Rose (N.J. 2011)
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (N.J. 2010)
- L.A. v. E.K. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026)
- The People v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility (N.Y. 2023)
- FARRUGGIO'S BRISTOL, ETC. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) (CONSOLIDATED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021)
- In re N.J.A.C. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017)
- State v. J.M., Jr.(075317) (N.J. 2016)
- State in the Interest of J.F. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016)
- In re Registrant P.B. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2012)
- New Jersey Ass'n of School Administrators v. Schundler (N.J. 2012)
- Noah Tenenbaum v. Allstate Insurance Company (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026)
- In the Matter of the Registration of K.M. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025)
- In the Matter of the Commitment of K.W. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025)
- State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection v. Alsol Corporation (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
- Ippolito Corporation v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach Zoning Board of Adjustment (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
- In the Matters of Watchung Hills Regional High School District Board of Education (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
- Ortiz v. Breslin (Supreme Court of the United States 2022)
- NJ Citizen Action v. State of New Jersey (New Jersey Tax Court 2022)
- J.A. VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021)
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVID GHIGLIOTTY (17-02-0154, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
- SAL ELECTRIC CO., INC. VS. PLAINFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-3244-19, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
- SAL ELECTRIC CO., INC. VS. PLAINFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-3244-19, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020)
- ESSEX COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICERS PBA LOCAL 183 VS. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (STATE HEALTH BENEFITS COMMISSION) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
- C.D.R. VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (STATE PAROLE BOARD) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
- IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT A.A. (ML-09-07-0111) (ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
We granted certification in this consolidated appeal to review an Appellate Division determination that Megan’s Law, see N.J.S.A. 20:7-1 to -19, preempted and required the invalidation of municipal ordinances enacted by Cherry Hill Township and Galloway Township. The challenged ordinances each operated to prohibit convicted sex offenders from living within a designated distance of any school, park, playground, public library, or daycare center in its respective municipal jurisdiction. We now affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Lisa’s comprehensive opinion. G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 401 N.J.Super. 392, 951 A.2d 221 (2008). Accordingly, we hold that Cherry Hill Township’s and Galloway Township’s ordinances, establishing residency restrictions that formed buffer zones for convicted sex offenders living within their communities, are precluded by the present, stark language of Megan’s Law. It is that language which controls.
That said, we add the following. At oral argument, this Court was urged to provide guidance about the limits to Megan’s Law’s preemption of municipal action in respect of convicted sex offenders. Cherry Hill also sought to have this Court address hypothetical variations of its present ordinance, presumably to glean advice that might salvage an ordinance to replace the one invalidated. We cannot answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions. See Crescent Pk. Tenants Ass’n v. Realty Eq. Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107, 275 A.2d 433 (1971); N.J. Tpk. Auth. v. Parsons, 3 N.J. 235, 240, 69 A.2d 875 (1949). The judicial function operates best when a concrete dispute is presented to the courts. All that is before us is the viability of the challenged ordinances. That was all that was before the Appellate Division and that is all we can address. Accordingly, we decline the municipalities’ requests that we answer hypothetical questions about un-enacted ordinances or that we provide advisory opinions to function in the abstract.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
*137 For affirmance—Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS—6.
Opposed—N one.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.