Other acceptable forms providing proof of age are:. You will need a witness who is over 18 years of age with you when you apply for the marriage license. At the time you apply for your marriage license you will have to provide the name of who is going to marry you, where, and when, and an address and phone number for the officiant.
Couples wishing to establish a Marriage in the State of New Jersey, it shall be necessary that they satisfy all of the following criteria:. Box Trenton, NJ Ph: Please Note: State and county marriage license requirements often change. The above information is for guidance only and should not be regarded as legal advice. For more information regarding New Jersey marriage license laws and records please visit www.
Search Public Records by Name
Marriage License Laws. All Rights Reserved. Minimum age to marry is There is a hour waiting period. No blood test or residency requirements.
- greenville south carolina marriage certificates.
- Open Public Records (OPRA).
- roy l goodman birth record.
- application for a birth certificate.
- how to find people/x27s phone number.
Marriage licenses are handled by the Registrar of Vital Statistics. The New Jersey marriage license is valid for 6 Months. Proof of your residency. Your social security card or social security number. Any documents in a foreign language must be accompanied by a certified English translation. Audubon Park. Berlin B.
About Andrew Dauphinee
Berlin T. Cherry Hill. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 39 N. As the above discussion amply demonstrates, plaintiff's complaint, called by any name, was essentially a challenge to defendants' actions as governmental entities responding to plaintiff's document copying request. Its success rested totally upon his ability to demonstrate that the charges imposed violated OPRA or the common law.
It was not an independent cause of action for equitable relief founded upon some other legal duty, or otherwise "dictated by reason and justice. Plaintiff argues that our decision in Neelthak, supra, at , recognizes that when the cause of action "seeks the refund of moneys, not review of a ministerial government action" the Rule's statute of limitation does not apply. In Neelthak, the plaintiffs brought suit against the township and its engineering consultants, alleging they had been overcharged for engineering reviews of their development plans.
In the latter connection, plaintiffs sought an adjustment of fees improperly charged[. The trial court dismissed the claims finding they were untimely under the Rule. We reversed, holding that "[t]hose portions of the complaints that sought to vindicate [the] plaintiffs' rights concerning pass-through charges for engineering services. More importantly, we noted, the "plaintiffs were obliged to avail themselves of other adequate remedies to vindicate their interests in the correctness of charges for engineering fees, receiving proper credits, and avoiding future incorrect billings. In this case, however, plaintiff never faced the dilemma of having no other adequate remedy.
Unlike the plaintiffs in Neelthak, whom we found "could not properly have filed a proceeding in lieu of prerogative writs to achieve th[e] relief[,]" ibid. In fact, the first two counts of his complaint specifically alleged that the charges he was forced to pay were in excess of those permitted by OPRA and the common law. In short, plaintiff simply chose not to pursue his claim within forty-five days of defendants' alleged violations.
Browse NJ Tax Records For Camden County
He now seeks to avoid the consequences of not filing in a timely fashion by calling his claim something other than what it is. Seen in this light, plaintiff's reliance upon the following language in County of Essex, is also misplaced:. Under proper instructions from the judge, the jury may decide which of the two was proved, and plaintiff will be able to recover under one of the theories. Nice-Pak Prods. In Caputo, we recognized that a plaintiff could plead alternative theories of recovery, one based upon a valid contract, another based upon quasi-contract "that does not depend on there being an express contract.
We noted that the only limitation was that "a plaintiff may recover on one or the other theory, but not both. However, in Caputo, the alternative claims rested upon two separate and mutually exclusive theories of recovery. One, that plaintiff was entitled to legal relief because defendant breached its contract. The other, that plaintiff was entitled to equitable relief because although "there was no express contract providing for remuneration," "'[he] performed or conferred a benefit on defendant and that the failure of remuneration enriched defendant[.
As we have already noted, plaintiff in this case has not pled two alternative causes of action. Instead, in his complaint, plaintiff alleged only one viable theory of recovery, i. We reject the notion that our holding would cause any undue hardship upon someone, allegedly like plaintiff, who seeks government records and must either pay the "excessive" fee or not obtain the record.
Municipal Clerk | Gloucester Township
Regardless of the choice such a requestor would make, he would still have a cause of action for relief. If he left the government agency without obtaining what he sought, he could argue the imposition of an impermissible, excessive fee essentially amounted to a denial of his request, and file a complaint in court or through the Government Records Counsel.
This was the cause of action plaintiff alleged, but dismissed, in the first two counts of his complaint. A plaintiff could also seek mediation of the dispute in a more informal manner. We see no reason why the same options would not exist if a requestor paid the fee, essentially under protest, and then sought review in a timely fashion. In our opinion, requiring plaintiff to challenge the imposition of allegedly excessive fees within forty-five days better serves "OPRA's purpose[,] [which] is both to provide access to government records and to provide it promptly.
New Jersey Council on Affordable Hous.
We fail to see how waiting several months to challenge a fee as excessive better serves the expeditious resolution of disputes that OPRA clearly favors. We contrast this with an argument plaintiff made before us, i. Kopin v. Orange Prods. Unlike the periods prescribed by statutes of limitations, the concept of laches is "characteristically flexible.
This flexibility allows a court to apply a shorter or longer limitations period, as required by the interests of justice. Thus, accepting plaintiff's contention, there should not be a uniform period in which a plaintiff must challenge an excessive fee demand relating to public and government records. Instead, applying the concept of laches, "the central issue" would be whether it was "inequitable to permit the claim to be enforced[.
We believe the Court has implicitly rejected such an amorphous standard when it comes to any issue regarding the public's access to government records. In rejecting the suggestion of an "open-ended or multi-year period" of limitations, the Court has said, "Viewed as a whole, citizens are entitled to swift access to public records, and both the public and governmental bodies are logically entitled to have any disputes brought and addressed in the same, rapid manner.
- Records Database?
- complete finding guide hiring people right!
- Navigation menu.
- free white pages number find phone.
- Online Property Records!
- york county courthouse property records;
Lastly, plaintiff argues for the first time in his reply brief that the Rule's time limit should be relaxed in the "interest of justice. The issue was never raised below. Nieder v. Royal Indemn. Moreover, "[r]aising an issue for the first time in a reply brief is improper.
- Camden County, New Jersey Free Public Records.
- Camden County Arrest Records in NJ - Court & Criminal Records | BeenVerified!
- candidates texas court of criminal appeals.
- how to trace a phone no.
- mothers against drunk driving florida chapter.
- jackson county mo property search.
We do not view the issue to present a "'matter of great public interest'" so as to exercise our discretion and consider it now for the first time. Nieder, supra, 62 N. Summer, 58 N. Judge Axelrad did not participate in oral argument. However, the parties consented to her participation in the decision. Plaintiff refers to himself as "Clifford Goldsmith" in the Notice of Appeal.
We utilize the name plaintiff used in his complaint. Plaintiff had earlier stipulated to the dismissal of his substantive causes of action under OPRA or the common law right of access. Plaintiff does not challenge on appeal the dismissal of his claim made under the CRA. See Mason, supra, N. Enter your email. This case can also be found at N. We begin by reviewing the statute of limitations contained in the Rule, which provides No action in lieu of prerogative writs shall be commenced later than 45 days after the accrual of the right to the review, hearing or relief claimed, except as provided by paragraph b of this rule.
Seen in this light, plaintiff's reliance upon the following language in County of Essex, is also misplaced: [A] plaintiff who has attempted to prove both breach of contract and unjust enrichment need not choose which one will go to the jury, as long as there is sufficient evidence as to both. Justia Legal Resources. Find a Lawyer. Law Students.