Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersnj

10,000+ results

1.88s

  • Elray Outdoor Corporation v. Board of Adjustment of City of Englewood

    201 N.J. 153 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 28, 2010

    988 A.2d 1179 (2010) 201 N.J. 153 ELRAY OUTDOOR CORPORATION v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. C-584 September Term 2009, 064899 Supreme Court of New Jersey. January 28, 2010. Petition for Certification Denied.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Ramapo-Indian Hills Education Ass'n v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Board of Education

    94 N.J. 530 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 1983

    Cited 2 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • New Jersey Suburban Water Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

    123 N.J.L. 303 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 22, 1939

    Public Service Gas Co. v. Public Utility Board, 84 N. J. L. 463; 87 Atl. Rep. 651 , lastly affirmed, 87 N. J. L. 581; 92 Atl. Rep. 606 ; Erie Railroad Co. v. Public Utility Board, 85 N. J. L. 420; 89 Atl. … Denver Union Stockyards Co. v. United States, supra; Public Service Gas Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, supra.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Overlook Terrace Management Corp. v. Rent Control Board of West New York

    71 N.J. 451 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 10, 1976

    Compare Comment, “Parker v. Brown: A Preemption Analysis,” 84 Yale L. J. 1164 (1975) with Note, “Conflicts Between State Statutes and Municipal Ordinances.” 72 Harv. L. Rev. 737 (1959). See also Lodge 76, Int. … Edgemere at Somerset v. Johnson, et al., 143 N. J. Super. 222 (Cty. Ct. 1976) and Levin-Sagner-Orange v. Rent Levelling Board of Orange, 142 N. J. Super. 429 (Law Div. 1976) reached the same result as Druker .

    Cited 80 timesPublished
  • Celtic Insurance Company v. New Jersey Individual Health Coverage Program Board

    200 N.J. 502 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 2009

    983 A.2d 1112 (2009) 200 N.J. 502 CELTIC INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEW JERSEY INDIVIDUAL HEALTH COVERAGE PROGRAM BOARD. IN RE NEW JERSEY'S IHCPB'S ADOPTION OF N.J.S.A. 11:20-2.17. C-00347 September Term 2009, 64,130.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • New York Bay Railroad v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

    100 N.J.L. 182 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 19, 1924

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Borough of Hasbrouck Heights v. State Board of Tax Appeals

    125 N.J.L. 617 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 7, 1941

    The county board reduced the value of the building to $75,000. The owner and the municipality appealing, the assessment upon the building was reduced by the state board to $70,000. … The evidence is not persuasive that the state board erred. Tennant v. Jersey City, 122 N. J. L. 174; Skouras Theatres Corp. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 Id. 52. The apartment house was built between 1928 and 1931.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Rush v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE VIL. OF SOUTH ORANGE

    11 N.J. 327 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 2, 1953

    RUSH, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE VILLAGE OF SOUTH ORANGE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND ARTHUR TZESES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. February 2, 1953.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Port of New York Authority v. Essex County Board of Taxation

    46 N.J. 51 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 6, 1965

    The Port Authority appealed to the State Board of Taxation where its appeals have yet to be heard. … The County Board also had jurisdiction to decide whether the fee itself is assessable but in that connection the County Board could not decide whether the City is entitled to be saved harmless or indemnified by the Port Authority

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Borough of Woodcliff Lake v. State Board of Tax Appeals

    14 N.J. Misc. 132 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 6, 1936

    We are asked to review a judgment of the state board of tax appeals settling the value of lands and improvements of the Hackensack Water Company lying within the borough of Woodeliff Lake in the county of Bergen. … Brom our examination of the record, we are satisfied that the state board of tax appeals properly found, on the evidence adduced, the true value of the lands and improvements situate within the borough of Woodeliff.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Morgan v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund

    120 N.J.L. 567 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 16, 1938

    This language is used: “The board of trustees shall retire said member at the time specified or at such other time within thirty days after the date so specified as the board of trustees may find advisable.” … Prosecutors rely on the case of O’Brien v. New York State Teachers’ Retirement Board, 213 N. Y. Supp. 738 ; affirmed, 244 N. Y. 530 .

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • State ex rel. North American Phonograph Co. v. State Board of Assessors

    54 N.J.L. 430 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1892

    This writ is directed to the state board of assessors to review an assessment of taxes, made against the prosecutor, in the years 1889 and 1890, under the act entitled “An act to provide for the imposition of state taxes … This case is distinguishable from Norton Construction Company v. Board of Assessors, 24 Vroom 564 , where there was no actual location of the business within the state, and the work had not yet begun.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • F. S. D. Industries, Inc. v. Board of Education

    81 N.J. 263 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 15, 1979

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State v. Town of Union

    62 N.J.L. 142 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1898

    In Van Riper v. … In Pell v.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • State, Union Waxed & Parchment Paper Co. v. State Board of Assessors

    73 N.J.L. 374 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1906

    The assessments were made by the state board of assessors upon the capital stock of the prosecutor, by way of a franchise tax, pursuant to statute. … Flower Hill Cemetery Co. v. North Bergen, 39 Vroom 488 ; S. C. affirmed, 41 Id. 338.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Lambertville Water Co. v. New Jersey Board of Public Utility Commissioners

    79 N.J. 449 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 1979

    However, the Appellate Division, while supporting the Board’s refusal to be bound by the 48% figure, was unable to find any rational basis for the Board’s use of a 38.9% computation. … In Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 381 A. 2d 1080 (Me. 1977), the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine had before it a statute dealing with increases in public utility rates.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Galloway Township Board of Education v. Galloway Township Ass'n of Educational Secretaries

    78 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 1, 1978

    In NLRB v. … See GPD, Inc. v. NLRB, 430 F. 2d 963, 964 (6 Cir. 1970); NLRB v. L. B. Foster Co., supra, 418 F. 2d at 45 ; NLRB v. Luisi Truck Lines, 348 F. 2d 842, 847-48 (9 Cir. 1967) Sakrete of No. Calif., Inc. v.

    Cited 48 timesPublished
  • Pj Smith Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. North Plainfield Board of Education

    199 N.J. 515 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 2009

    SMITH ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. v. NORTH PLAINFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION. C-968 September Term 2008, 64,099 Supreme Court of New Jersey. May 21, 2009. Petition for certification. Denied.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Halligan & McLellan, Inc. v. New Jersey State Board of Tax Appeals

    122 N.J.L. 551 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 12, 1939

    The Essex County Board of Taxation canceled the assessment. The State Board of Tax Appeals reversed that judgment, and “restored” the assessment. … The judgment of the State Board of Tax Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the judgment of the Essex County Board of Taxation is affirmed, with costs.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Trustees of Stevens Institute of Technology v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

    105 N.J.L. 655 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 20, 1929

    This was an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the judgment or order of the state board of taxes and assessments brought to that tribunal for review on certiorari. … See Breitbart v. Lurich, 98 N. J. L. 556; Hand v. Howe, 1 N. J. Mis. R. 513; 104 N. J. L. 170.

    Cited 14 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.