concurring.
I join the Court in áffirming the judgment of the Appellate Division on the narrow question involving the “law of the case” doctrine. I write separately to emphasize that under that doctrine, the Court’s opinion in Abbamont v. Piscataway Township Bd. of Educ., 138 N.J. 405, 650 A.2d 958 (1994) (Abbamont I), would have no precedential weight in subsequent cases involving the underlying issue of whether punitive damages are available against public entities under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8. Abbamont, 314 N.J.Super. 293, 301, 714 A.2d 958 (App.Div.1998).
In my view, the Legislature did not clearly express its intention to subject public entities to liability for punitive damages under CEPA. As Justice Pollock stated in Abbamont I, “[t]he best solution would be for the Legislature to revisit the issue and resolve it definitively.” 138 N.J. at 436, 650 A.2d 958 (Pollock, J., concurring and dissenting).
Chief Justice PORITZ and Justice GARIBALDI join in this concurring opinion.
For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG and VERNIERO — 7.
Opposed — None.