endorsing the position that “[w]ith the wisdom of the policy adopted, with the adequacy or practicability of the law enacted to forward it, the courts are both incompetent and unauthorized to deal.”
How later courts described this case
- endorsing the position that “[w]ith the wisdom of the policy adopted, with the adequacy or practicability of the law enacted to forward it, the courts are both incompetent and unauthorized to deal.”
- reaching similar conclusion in context of rent control
- 6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned
- test of constitutionality of rent control
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Conpoed, P. J. A. D.,
Temporarily Assigned (concurring). I join the court’s opinion except as to the references to public utility rate cases in connection with the matter of “fair return”. See my concurring opinion in Troy Hills Village v. Parsippany-Troy Hills, 68 N. J. 604 (1975).
Justice Clippoed joins in this concurring opinion.
Clippoed, J., and Conpoed, P. J. A. D., concurring in the result.
For reversal and remandment in Hutton Parle Gardens•— Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain, Sullivan,
*576 Pashman, Clifford and Schreiber and Judge Conford —7.
For affirmance — None.
For affirmance and remandmmt in Cosden — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman, Clifford and Schreiber and Judge Conford — 7.
For reversal — None.