Case law

West Shore Railroad v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

112 N.J.L. 83 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 5, 1934

The question before the Supreme Court was whether, to quote the language of the opinion of that court, the board in adopting the crossing plan called “P-5 revised” instead of plan “B-2,” made a determination not reasonably

City of Newark v. State Board of Tax Appeals

129 N.J.L. 162 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 15, 1942

Phillipsburg Transit Co. v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

99 N.J.L. 319 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 25, 1924

This writ brings up for review a judgment of the state board of taxes and assessment of the State of New Jersey (hereinafter referred to as the board), rendered in the following circumstances: On February 17th, 1922, the … Phillipsburg Railroad Co. v. Board of Assessors, 82 N. J. L. 49.

Lehigh Valley Railroad v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

105 N.J.L. 349 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 4, 1929

The tax was assessed by the state board of taxes and assessment under authority conferred upon it by the provisions of the Eailroad Tax act of 1888 {Comp.

Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Ass'n v. Board of Education

3 N.J. Misc. 660 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 3, 1925

City of Linden v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

3 N.J. Misc. 691 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 22, 1925

Hackensack Water Co. v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

4 N.J. Misc. 838 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 7, 1926

This case is controlled by the case of the Hackensack Water Co. v. State Board of Taxes and Assessment, 4 N. J. Mis. R. 567, decided the present May term of the court.

Rahway Valley Railroad v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

5 N.J. Misc. 338 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 10, 1927

It is objected that this is improper practice and that we should consider no evidence except that taken before the board. … the parties and conferring jurisdiction on the board should receive careful examination.

City of Plainfield v. State Board of Tax Appeals

125 N.J.L. 187 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 23, 1940

The valuations have gone through the statutory course— made by the local assessors, appealed to the county board of taxation and again appealed to the state board. … The state board in every instance reduced the assessment below that fixed by either the assessors or the county board; and inasmuch as the testimony was taken before a single member, the board finding really rests upon the

City of Camden v. Camden County Board of Taxation

121 N.J.L. 262 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 29, 1938

The prosecutor of this writ complains that the Camden County Board of Taxation erred in cancelling taxes and assessments for the year 1937, upon property of the Abraham Browning Council No. 133, Junior *263 Order United American … Newark v. State Board, 9 N. J. Mis. R. 599. All of the requirements of the statute are met.

Taber v. State Board of Registration & Examination in Dentistry

135 N.J.L. 255 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 18, 1947

Levin v. State Board, 121 N. J. L. 193; Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U. S. 105, 113 . The suspension is set aside.

Fejoku v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of Am., Inc.

236 N.J. 69 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 16, 2018

Simon v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen's Retirement System

117 N.J. 652 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 19, 1989

State v. Haring

55 N.J.L. 327 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1893

any county public road board, which then existed or might thereafter exist in any county, shall consist of members of the board of .chosen freeholders of such county, to be appointed by the said board of chosen freeholders … State v. Clayton, 24 Vroom 277, 282 . The result is that the judgment below must be affirmed. For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Depue, Garrison, Magie, Van Syokel, Bogert, Brown, Clement, Smith. 10.

McGee v. Board of Trustees of Public Employees' Retirement System

45 N.J. 576 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 25, 1965

Board of Trustees, etc., 49 N. J. Super. 309, 319 (App. Div. 1958). But compare Wagner v. Board of Trustees of the Public Employees’ Retirement System, 87 N. J. Super. 498 (App. Div. 1965), certiorari denied 45 N. … Upon our view of the entire record, the Board had adequate basis for so finding and therefore we shall not disturb its determination. Cf. Atkinson v. Parsekian, 37 N. J. 143, 149, 96 A. L. R. 2d 602 (1962); Close v.

Mayor of Jersey City v. State Board of Assessors

75 N.J.L. 571 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 2, 1908

It is now insisted by the plaintiffs in error that these three parcels were properly assessed as main stem under the principle adopted by this court in Jersey City v. … State Board of Assessors and Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 45 Vroom 720 , reversing S. C., 44 Id. 170.

Long Dock Co. v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

90 N.J.L. 703 · 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.

In re Brown

218 N.J. 387 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 2014

BROWN of EAST ORANGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1986; And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated … XIV-2012-00408E; And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with Rule l:20-16(e); And good cause

Christina Silviera-Francisco v. Board of Education of Elizabeth(074974)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 27, 2016

Christina Silviera-Francisco v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth (A-28-14) (074974) Argued October 27, 2015 -- Decided January 27, 2016 CUFF, P.J.A.D. … Programs v.

Valemont Realty Corp. v. Board of Public Utility Comissioners

9 N.J. Misc. 70 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 8, 1931

“We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the board where there is evidence which supports the order under review.” Commonwealth Water Co. v. Board, 1 N. J. Mis. R. 355, 356. … The board is solely concerned with a disagreement as to price.