Winberry v. Salisbury
1950 N.J. LEXIS 180, 5 N.J. 240, 74 A.2d 406 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The New Jersey Constitution grants the state Supreme Court exclusive and continuous power to create rules governing practice and procedure in all state courts. The phrase "subject to law" in the constitution means court rules cannot abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive law, but it does not permit the Legislature to override the court's procedural rules.
Facts:
- A Middlesex County grand jury issued a report that was filed with the county clerk.
- Winberry believed a portion of this report was libelous towards him.
- Winberry sought a court order to have the alleged libel expunged from the official grand jury report.
Procedural Posture:
- Winberry sued Salisbury in the New Jersey Superior Court (trial court) to expunge alleged libel from a grand jury report.
- The trial court granted Salisbury's motion for summary judgment on May 25, 1949.
- Winberry filed a notice of appeal on July 26, 1949, which was more than 45 days after the summary judgment order.
- Salisbury (appellee) moved to dismiss the appeal in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court (intermediate appellate court), arguing it was untimely under a 45-day court rule.
- Winberry (appellant) argued the appeal was timely under a one-year statute.
- The Appellate Division granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that the one-year legislative statute prevailed over the court's 45-day rule.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the phrase "subject to law" in Article VI, Section II, paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution give the Legislature the power to enact statutes that override the Supreme Court's rules on practice and procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Vanderbilt, C. J.
No, the phrase "subject to law" does not grant the Legislature the power to override the Supreme Court's procedural rules. Interpreting "subject to law" to mean "subject to legislation" would create an intolerable and continuous conflict between the judicial and legislative branches, rendering the Court's rule-making power meaningless. The only interpretation that gives rational significance to the phrase and aligns with the Constitution's goal of creating an integrated judicial system is to construe it as being subject to substantive law. This creates a fundamental distinction: the Court has exclusive power over practice and procedure (the mechanics of litigation), while the Legislature defines substantive law (the rights and duties of citizens). This separation is essential for the judiciary to function as a co-equal branch of government and to effectively manage the court system. Therefore, the appeal is properly dismissed because it was filed beyond the 45-day deadline established by court rule.
Concurring - Case, J.
Yes, the phrase "subject to law" was intended to mean subject to statutory law, thereby giving the Legislature the final say on matters of practice and procedure. The majority's interpretation ignores the plain meaning and historical context of the phrase, which was deliberately inserted to create a legislative check on judicial power. The framers of the constitution carefully distinguished between the court's absolute power over "administration" and its limited power over "practice and procedure," which is "subject to law." Stripping the Legislature of its traditional authority in this area creates an unchecked judiciary, which is contrary to the American system of checks and balances. However, I concur in dismissing the appeal on the separate grounds that the modified order relieving plaintiff from costs was not a final appealable order, making the appeal procedurally defective regardless of the timing issue.
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the New Jersey Supreme Court's plenary power over court practice and procedure, solidifying the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. By defining "subject to law" as substantive law, the court insulated judicial administration from legislative interference, preventing potential chaos from conflicting rules and ensuring a uniform, flexible, and efficient court system. This ruling has had a lasting impact on the separation of powers in New Jersey, cementing the court's authority to manage its own affairs and making the judicial rule-making process, rather than legislative action, the primary vehicle for procedural reform.
Unlock the full brief for Winberry v. Salisbury