Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersnj

10,000+ results

1.37s

  • Harris v. State Board of Registration & Examination in Dentistry

    9 N.J. Misc. 635 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 4, 1931

    The writ of certiorari brings up for review a resolution, of the state board of registration and examination in dentistry-revoking the license of Simon Harris to practice dentistry in. this state. … The board found, from the proofs adduced, that Harris was guilty of malpractice and the publications of false, fraudulent'and misleading statements of his art, skill and knowledge.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • West Shore Railroad v. Board Of Public Utility Commissioners

    11 N.J. Misc. 149 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 1, 1933

    This writ of certiorari brings up an order of the board of public utility commissioners, dated June 25th, 1931, modifying a previous order which directed the elimination of a grade crossing at Bogota. … This is known as P-5 revised, or the board’s plan. The railroads contend that the original plan, B-2, should have been retained.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Newark Fire Insurance v. State Board of Tax Appeals

    120 N.J.L. 224 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 29, 1938

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Sun Oil Co. v. Essex County Board of Taxation

    122 N.J.L. 594 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 11, 1939

    The judgment under review will be set aside for the reasons stated in Duke Power Co. v. The Essex County Board of Taxation and the City of Newark, 122 N. J. L. 589.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Atlantic City & Shore Railroad v. State Board of Assessors

    87 N.J.L. 137 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 16, 1915

    Paterson, &c., Electric Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 69 Id. 116; 70 Id. 825. This assessment cannot be set aside on that ground. … Griffith v. City of Trenton, 76 Id. 23; State v. Twining, 73 Id. 683; State v. Corson, 67 Id. 178; Stagway v. Riker, 84 Id. 201. The assessment is therefore affirmed.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State Board of Forest Park Reservation Commissioners v. Veeder

    87 N.J.L. 479 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 10, 1915

    This case, though it differs in its facts from those which were present in State Board of Forest Park Reservation Commissioners against McCloskejr, decided at the present term of court, nevertheless calls for the application

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State ex rel. Powell v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

    59 N.J.L. 117 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1896

    The relator asks for a mandamus to compel the defendant, the board of freeholders of the county of Camden, to fix his fees and expenses, as keeper of the morgue of that county, for the recovery and care of the bodies of the … dead ■during his term of office. *118 The act-relative to morgues and moi’gue-keepers provides-that the fees and expenses of moigue-keepers for the recovery and care of the bodies of the.unknown dead shall be fixed by the board

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. State Board of Education

    126 N.J.L. 210 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 27, 1941

    The State Board properly held that R. … was imposed by the State Board regulation.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Borough of Oradell v. State Board of Tax Appeals

    123 N.J.L. 86 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 14, 1939

    The judgment of the county board, in the circumstances, was a nullity. … We think the judgment of the state board was right. See Mellor v. Kaighn, 89 N. J. L. 543, and Shrewsbury v. Merchants Steamboat Co., 76 Id. 407.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hoboken Ferry Co. v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

    103 N.J.L. 148 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 18, 1926

    On appeal to the state board from the larger assessment it was reduced to $98,000, and on review by certiorari was still further reduced by the Supreme Court to $75,000 per acre for each year. … This rule, stated in Yellow Pine Co. v. Board of Assessors, 72 N. J. L. 182, has been so many times reiterated in this court that it needs no further citation of authority. The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • City of Newark v. Essex County Board of Taxation

    127 N.J.L. 314 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 13, 1941

    Duke Power Co. v. Somerset County Board, 124 N. J. L. 481; affirmed, 125 Id. 431. There seems to be no dispute as to the correctness of this characterization. … Duke Power Co. v. Essex County Board, &c., 122 Id. 589; affirmed, 124 Id. 41. Eixed capital may or may not be personalty having a situs in the City of Newark.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • City of Hoboken v. State Board of Tax Appeals

    117 N.J.L. 119 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 2, 1936

    This appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court refusing to quash certain subpoenas requiring the appellants, who were members of the state board of tax appeals, to appear and testify as witnesses before a Supreme- Court

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Bucholtz v. Board of Adjustments of City of Ventnor

    106 N.J.L. 562 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 19, 1930

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State Board of Med. Examiners of N.J. v. Blechschmidt

    106 N.J.L. 602 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 20, 1929

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Board of Chosen Freeholders of Atlantic County v. Lee

    77 N.J.L. 799 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 23, 1909

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

    90 N.J.L. 702 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 24, 1917

    The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons given in the per curiam in Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Taxes and Assessment, &c., No. 48 of the present term of this court.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Passaic Water Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

    90 N.J.L. 714 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 11, 1917

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • John Maneely Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals

    22 N.J. Misc. 170 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 24, 1944

    Upon an examination of the facts and the law of this case we aré of the view that the matter was correctly decided by the State Board of Tax Appeals of New Jersey' whose opinion is reported in 21 N. J. Mis. R. 229. … The writ of certiorari is therefore dismissed and the tax judgment affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the State Board of Tax Appeals of New Jersey.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

    5 N.J. Misc. 559 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 1927

    The view of the board on this point meets with my entire *561 concurrence. … I have no doubt whatever about the jurisdiction of the board. It is not claimed, I think, that it was challenged at the hearing.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Kehoe v. New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners

    112 N.J.L. 504 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 12, 1934

    Cited 0 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.