Case law

State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

71 N.J.L. 159 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1904

Hermann v. Guttenberg, 34 Vroom 616 ; Hammer v. State, ex rel. Richards. 15 Id. 667 ; Freeholders of Hudson v. Clarke, 36 Id. 271; Riccio v. … See Kraft v. Board of Education, 38 Vroom 512 .

Commons v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment

81 N.J. 597 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 18, 1980

See Gougeon v. … In Chirichello v.

Fitzsimmons v. Board of Education, Carteret

125 N.J.L. 15 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 18, 1940

Magowan v. Baird, 53 N. J. … of the cases headed by Lyon v.

State ex rel. Gallager v. Board of Public Works & Board of Finance & Taxation

45 N.J.L. 465 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1883

Springfield v. County Commissioners, 10 Pick. 59 . … It was said by this court in Silverthorne v.

Haines v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

73 N.J.L. 82 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 13, 1905

Prior to April 1st, 1903, a petition, duly-signed, had been presented to the board of chosen freeholders of Burlington county under the eighth section of the Road Improvement act of March 22d, 1895 (Gen.

Board of Education v. Alpha Education Ass'n

190 N.J. 34 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 21, 2006

See, e.g., D.E.I., Inc. v. … Citing Shepherd v.

Andrews v. Ocean Twp. Board of Adjustment

30 N.J. 245 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1959

The cited statute reads: “The board of adjustment ^ shall have the power to: d. … They argue relief may not be granted in the absence of hardship, some zoning burden peculiar to the property in question and not common to the entire district, citing Lumund v. Board of Adjustment, 4 N.

Fraser v. State Board of Education

133 N.J.L. 15 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 30, 1945

If the reasoning in Greenway v. Board of Education of Camden, 129 N. J. L. 461, is somewhat extended, as we think it should be, board action is necessary to implement every increase. 2. … The judgment of the State Board of Education will be affirmed.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Board of Review

25 N.J. 221 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 24, 1957

See Browning King Co. of N. Y. v. Local 195, 34 N. J. Super. 13, 26 (App. Div. 1955); Textile Workers Union of America v. Paris Fabric Mills, Inc., 22 N. J. Super. 381, 383 (App. … In Ablondi v. Board of Review, supra, and Mortensen v.

Potts v. Board of Adjustment of Princeton

133 N.J.L. 230 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 14, 1945

Brandon v. Montclair, 124 N. J. L. 135; affirmed, 125 Id. 367; Dubin v. Wich, 120 Id. 469; Schnell v. Township Committee of Ocean, 120 Id. 194; Phillips Oil Co. v. Municipal Council of Clifton, 120 Id. 13; Cook v. … Since he adduced no evidence to sustain it, it was incumbent upon the board to resolve the issue against him. Brandon v. Montclair, supra; Dubin v. Wick, supra.

Hofbauer v. Board of Police Commissioners

133 N.J.L. 293 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 5, 1945

In June, 1944, prosecutor was called before the Board of Police Commissioners, reprimanded and warned that charges would be preferred against him if he continued his part-time employment. … The argument that the power given the Board of‘ Police Commissioners to formulate rules and regulations is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative duties has no merit. Cf. Alcutt v. Police Commissioners, 66 N. J.

State Board of Assessors v. Central Railroad

48 N.J.L. 146 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1886

Co., pros., v. … In Little v.

Weeks v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

68 N.J.L. 622 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 2, 1903

The liability of the board of freeholders to answer in damages for injuries received by a person in crossing a county bridge is a statutory one, and is limited to such injuries as *623 directly result from tbe neglect of … the board to properly “erect, rebuild or repair” such bridge.

Campbell v. Board of Adjustment, South Plainfield

118 N.J.L. 116 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 27, 1937

The facts are much like those in Provident Institutions v. Castles, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 773; 168 Atl. Rep. 169 .

State v. Board of Public Works

48 N.J.L. 428 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1886

This writ of certiorari is directed to the board of public works of Jersey City, the board of finance and tax *429 ation of Jersey City, and the mayor and aldermen of Jersey City, requiring them to certify their proceedings … It concedes that in legal theory there is such an entity as the board "of public works of Jersey City, but insists that the persons who assumed the functions of such a board had no legal authority for so doing.

Kreigh v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

62 N.J.L. 178 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1898

Union soldier, and that on December 9th, 1897, he was dismissed by the board without any reason being assigned. … Allen v. Township of Bernards, 28 Vroom 303 ; Schenck v. State, 31 Id. 381 . The relator’s claim must therefore be tested by the act of March 14th, 1895. Gen. Stat., p. 3702.

Chase v. New Jersey State Parole Board

228 N.J. 417 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 2, 2016

Spencer v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

66 N.J.L. 301 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 17, 1901

Freeholders of Sussex v. Strader, 3 Harr. 108 ; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. 728; Cooley v. Essex, 3 Dutcher 415; 2 Am. & Eng. Encycl. L. 558 and note 1; Liver-more v. Freeholders, 2 Vroom 507 ; Pray v. … It follows, therefore, that if some of the officers or agents of the board have neglected their duty and have acted ultra vires by erecting bridges, for the erection of which no duty was past upon the county board, then ’

Weiner v. Board Commissioners, Perth Amboy

106 N.J.L. 276 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 25, 1930

of commissioners, the same shall thereupon be suspended from going into operation, and it shall bo the duty of the board of commissioners to reconsider such ordinance; and if the same is not entirely repealed, the board … To the same effect are Loertscher v. Jersey City, 84 N. J. L. 537, 538; and Smith v. Florham Park, 128 Atl. Rep. 479 ; 3 N. J. Mis. R. 355.

TSI East Brunswick, LLC v. Zoning Board

215 N.J. 26 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 23, 2013

Id. at 4 , 526 A.2d 109 ; see Sica v. … The Zoning Board was entitled to accept the expert opinion offered by New Vornado’s planner and to reject the contrary opinions offered by TSI’s planner. See Kramer v.