Durkin Lumber Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 106 N.J.L. 183, 147 A. 555 (E & A 1929).
The 1947 Constitution continued this provision verbatim, except that in addition to zoning "buildings and structures", it was extended to embrace "the nature and extent of the uses of land", N.J.Const. 1947, Art. 4, § 6, par. 2.
Another addition was a provision that the law concerning municipal corporations formed for local government is to be liberally construed in their favor. N.J.Const., 1947, Art. 4, § 7, P 11. This has been applied to matters of zoning. Ward v. Scott, 11 N.J. 117, 93 A.2d 385 (1952); Yanow v. Seven Oaks Park, 11 N.J. 341, 94 A.2d 482 (1953).
Thus, while New Jersey's courts at one time took a course opposite to that of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303 (1926), the constitutional amendments and enabling legislation have brought local law into the same direction.
Whatever doubts there may have been before about the application of res judicata or collateral estoppel to suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, were laid to rest by the Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S. Ct. 411, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1980). The decision there rests squarely on the Congressional statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, which has been the law since the year 1790.
That statute requires that the judicial proceedings of any court of any state shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of that state.
This standard requires that the Court look to the laws or usage of the state to ascertain the preclusive effect there of the earlier judgment.
In New Jersey there is no question that the 1980 judgment would preclude a new lawsuit in the New Jersey courts on the claim asserted here.
This case is a direct parallel to Falcone v. Middlesex County Medical Society, 47 N.J. 92, 219 A.2d 505 (1966).
Dr. Falcone had successfully prosecuted a prerogative writ suit to require the County Medical Society to accept him as a member so he would be eligible to serve on hospital staffs in the county. Having succeeded, he then filed a second suit for damages incurred over the period during which he had been denied admission unlawfully or wrongfully.
The Supreme Court ordered the complaint dismissed on the ground that any claim for damages that he might have had should have been asserted in the first action under New Jersey's single controversy doctrine which is now set out explicitly in N.J.Court Rule R. 4:27-1(b), effective 1979.
In the New Jersey suit here, the principle of Falcone was followed, since the prerogative writ suit challenging the denial of the building permit and the validity of the rezoning amendment did assert a damage claim by way of asking for a determination that there had been inverse condemnation and damages. These issues were severed.
The trial on the severed issues was never reached because the predicate for them was a favorable judgment on the issues tried.
Since both the permit denial and the ordinance validity were upheld, there was no liability and hence no need to try damages.
A passage in New Jersey Education Association v. Burke, 579 F.2d 764 (CA3, 1978) may give the impression that New Jersey has not decided, or had not decided, whether claims that could have been, but were not raised are precluded in a later suit. See footnote 53 at pages 774 and 775.
Evidently the parties in Burke failed to brief the Court on the point since the single controversy doctrine had been law even before Falcone which was decided in 1966. Any doubt there may have been in 1978 when Burke was decided was eliminated in 1979 when Rule 4:27-1(b), took effect.
Thus, under New Jersey law, the claim now made is not merely a claim that could have been made or an issue that could have been raised but was not. Rather, it is a claim and an issue that was required to be raised because of the single controversy rule. Failure to raise it would result in a bar in New Jersey.
Of course, if that is the preclusive effect in New Jersey, it is the preclusive effect here.
In this case Ward did raise it. The feature was severed as noted and was rendered moot when the judgment went against her and her developer on all issues of liability.
Since 1948 New Jersey has recognized a single form of action on the civil side known as a "civil action". See New Jersey Court Rule R.4:2-1 which parallels F.R. Rule Civ.P. 2.
Since 1948 New Jersey has required a claim for relief to contain no more than a statement of the facts on which the claim is based showing that the pleader is entitled to relief and a demand for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. See N.J.Court Rule R.4:5-2 which parallels F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
Since 1948 New Jersey has provided that every final judgment shall, and I underscore shall, grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled even though he has not demanded such relief in his pleadings. See N.J.Court Rule R. 4:42-6 which parallels F.R.Civ.P. 54(c), second sentence.
The Superior Court of New Jersey is vested with "original general jurisdiction throughout the state in all causes", N.J.Const. 1947, Art. 6, § 3, P 2. Thus, its jurisdiction is coextensive with the full judicial power of the state. No statutes are needed since the authority is given by the local constitution.
Allen v. McCurry, supra, notes that the new remedy provided by § 1983 is one over which federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction. The same view has been expressed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey generally and in specific reference to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(5) in Peper v. Princeton, 77 N.J. 55, 389 A.2d 465 (1978).
Thus, the Superior Court had jurisdiction over the prerogative writ challenge, over the dependent claim for inverse condemnation and damages, and over the § 1983 claim now sought to be litigated here.
Having gone to court, Ward was required by New Jersey law to assert all of those claims in a single lawsuit. It was mandatory to do so. The consequence is that the first judgment precludes the assertion of a § 1983 claim in a later suit in Superior Court. That being so, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, requires this court to give the Superior Court proceedings the same full faith and credit they would have in the Superior Court of New Jersey.
The motion is, therefore, granted.
Aside from the summary judgment aspects, see Rogin v. Bensalem Township, 616 F.2d 680 (CA3, 1980), on the broader aspects of Section 1983 suits directed to state zoning action.
Submit an order accordingly.