Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.50s
Rite Aid of New Jersey, Inc. v. Board of Pharmacy
63 N.J. 503 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 29, 1973
Cited 3 timesPublishedO'Keefe v. Board of Trustees of the State Employees' Retirement System
131 N.J.L. 502 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 1944
Hackensack Trust Co. v. Hackensack, 116 N. J. L. 343, 346; 184 Atl. Rep. 408 ; Fedi v. Ryan, 118 N. J. L. 516, 517; 193 Atl. Rep. 801 ; Antonelli v. Newark, 128 N. J. L. 531, 532; 27 Atl. … Herod v. Mutual Chemical Co., 115 N. J. L. 369, 372; 180 Atl. Rep. 432 ; Public Service Co-ordinated Transport v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 115 N. J. L. 97, 103; 178 Atl. Rep. 550 ; Ott v. Braddock, 119 N. J.
Cited 7 timesPublishedClark v. Board of Equalization of Taxes
79 N.J.L. 454 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 4, 1910
Colonial Trust Co. v. Scheffey (par curiam); Kenilworth v. Board of Equalization of Taxes, 49 Vroom 302 . … Colonial Trust Co. v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMatturi v. Board of Trustees of the Judicial Retirement System
167 N.J. 83 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 2001
Cited 0 timesPublishedSanta Cruz v. Board of Review, Department of Labor & Industry
126 N.J. 312 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 12, 1991
Cited 0 timesPublishedDeborah Jewish Consumptive Relief Society v. State Board of Health
7 N.J. Misc. 418 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 19, 1929
It is not the function of a writ of mandamus to compel the state board of health to perform an act already completed nor to do it in a different way than already done. … Uszkay v. Dill, 92 N. J. L. 327. At all events the power to issue a writ of mandamus is discretionary. Jones Co. v. Town of Gutlenberg, 66 N. J. L. 58. The application for the writ is denied.
Cited 1 timesPublishedPublic Service Railway Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners
86 N.J.L. 696 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 16, 1914
Cited 2 timesPublishedAckerman Fuel Oil Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Paramus
136 N.J.L. 93 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 5, 1947
In Burmore v. Smith, 124 N. J. … Durkin Lumber Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 106 N. J. L. 183; Weisman v. Spoerer, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 731; Pieretti v. Johnson, 132 N. J. L. 576; Bronston v. Plainfield, 119 Id. 139.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDeborah Jewish Consumptive Relief Society v. State Board of Health
7 N.J. Misc. 779 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 16, 1929
The provisions of the act, so far forth as they relate to the determination of the state board, are as follows: “4. … At the time and place so fixed for said hearing the state board of health shall hear all parties, both for and against said application, and said board shall thereupon either grant or withhold the consent and approval asked
Cited 0 timesPublishedPhillips v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWN OF WESTFIELD
24 N.J. 465 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 10, 1957
24 N.J. 465 (1957) 132 A.2d 558 CHARLES ALAN PHILLIPS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWN OF WESTFIELD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. June 10, 1957.
Cited 0 timesPublishedHillside Bus Owners Ass'n v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners
106 N.J.L. 243 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 14, 1929
Cited 0 timesPublishedAssociates of Jersey Co. v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment
98 N.J.L. 250 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 1922
The judgment under review herein will be affirmed, for the reasons given in the per curiam in Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. … State Board of Taxes and Assessment et al., PTo. 45, of the present term of this court (post p. 283).
Cited 0 timesPublishedCommunipaw Central Land Co. v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment
98 N.J.L. 259 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 1922
The judgment under review herein will be affirmed, for the reasons given in the per curiam in Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. … State Board of Taxes and Assessment et al., No. 45 of the present term of this court (post p. 283).
Cited 0 timesPublishedCity of Long Branch v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners
128 N.J.L. 91 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 13, 1942
The utility on November 14th, 1940, filed with the Board a schedule of increased rates effective as of January 1st, 1941. The Board suspended the proposed rate pending a hearing pursuant to N. J. S. … We can hardly say, however, that the Board’s findings have no support in the proofs. The Board considered all the proper elements. New Jersey Suburban Water Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 123 N. J.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCity of Atlantc City v. State Board of Tax Appeals
128 N.J.L. 278 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 6, 1942
This court does not disturb the judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals on questions of fact unless the evidence is persuasive that the board erred in its determination. Tennant v. Jersey City, 122 N. J. … L. 174; affirmed, 123 Id. 200; Skouras Theatres Corp. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 Id. 52.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDwight School of Englewood v. State Board of Tax Appeals
117 N.J.L. 113 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 2, 1936
Examination of the proofs taken in this case leads us to the conclusion that it is controlled by the decision of this court in Carteret Academy v. State Board, 104 N. J.
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnion Township Teachers Ass'n ex rel. Allen v. Board of Education
90 N.J. 161 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 24, 1982
Both the Association and the Board appealed to the Appellate Division. … Those issues have been decided this day in the case of Lavin v. Board of Education of Hackensack, 90 N.J. 145 (1982).
Cited 1 timesPublishedSecond National Bank & Trust Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals
114 N.J.L. 573 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 8, 1935
Justice Swayze, in Commercial Trust Co. v. Hudson Board of Taxation, 86 N. J. … . *574 The county board must, from all the evidence, determine the true value of bank stock for purposes of taxation. The bank’s statement is not binding. Newton Trust Co. v. Atwood, 77 N. J. L. 141.
Cited 7 timesPublishedHudson County Bus Owners Ass'n v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners
6 N.J. Misc. 1070 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 30, 1928
The board of public utility commissioners held this revocation by the town of Secaucus was unlawful, and rightfully so as we think; under Pamph. … We are satisfied with the decision of the board of public utility commissioners, as set out in the printed book on pages 5 to 10.
Cited 2 timesPublished
Ask Donna