Band's Refuse Removal, Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn

Band's Refuse Removal, Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, 1960.
62 N.J.Super. 522, 163 A.2d 465

Facts: (Defendants include Fair Lawn and Capasso.) Borough of Fair Lawn advertised for bids to collect trash in the town. Capasso won. The town enacted ordinance 688, which said that only a person who held a contract with the town could be granted a permit to collect trash in it. Band's RR had a contract to collect garbage from the Western Electric plant in town, so it applied for a permit and was denied under the ordinance. Band's RR filed a complaint alleging that ordinance 688 was arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional, and ultra vires. A whole heap of procedural actions followed, but mainly, the judge started acting like an advocate.

Procedure: Trial court found the defendants, Capasso's contract void from the start, and ordinance 688 illegal, and awarded the borough moneys. (?) Capasso appealed.

Issue: Was the ordinance valid? Was the way the trial judged behaved correct?

Holding: Yes, and no.

Reasoning: The trial judge was clearly advocating, which a judge cannot do. A judge can do many of the things this judge did, but not to this decree and not for his reasons (i.e. a crusade). Also, when the plaintiffs amended their accusations, the judge did not grant the defense any time to investigate or prepare to face these new accusations, which violates due process.