Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersnj

10,000+ results

1.84s

  • Abbott v. Burke

    193 N.J. 34 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 24, 2007

    application of plaintiffs for an Order in aid of litigants’ rights pursuant to Rule 1:10-3 and Rule 2:8-1, And plaintiffs having sought an Order directing defendants to comply with certain specified decisions of the Court, Abbott v. … Burke, 153 N.J. 480 , 710 A.2d 450 (1998) [“Abbott V"]; Abbott v. Burke, 164 N.J. 84 , 751 A.2d 1032 (2000) [“Abbott VII”], and Abbott v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • In re Warren Hills Regional Educational Ass'n v. Board of Education of Warren Hills Regional High School District

    93 N.J. 308 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 21, 1983

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • Pennsylvania Railroad v. Thompson

    49 N.J. Eq. 318 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1892

    Quackenbush v. Van Riper, 2 Gr. Ch. 350; McClure v. Gulick, 2 Harr. 340 ; State v. Gulick, 2 Harr. 435 ; Den. v. Hendrickson, 3 Harr. 366 . … In Spokes v. Banbury Board of Health, L. R. (1 Eq.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Kienzlan v. Bd. of Ed., Keansburg

    102 N.J. Eq. 334 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 6, 1928

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State v. Assessors of Taxes

    53 N.J.L. 156 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1890

    Sarrfurs, 7 Ad. & E. 925; Rex v. Cambridge, 3 Burr. 1647; Regina v. Clitheroe, 6 Mod. 133; Rex v. Cambridge, 4 Burr. 2008; County Commissioners v. Bellew, 99 U. S. 333 . … S. 599 ; Jones v. Jefferson, 66 Texas 576 ; People v. Barnett Township, 100 Ill. 332 .

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State v. Gallagher

    83 N.J.L. 321 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 21, 1912

    In State v. Jackson, 20 Vroom 252, Mr. … State v. Raymond, 24 Vroom 260 ; State v. Deliso, 46 Id. 808.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Hamilton Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. City of Paterson , Board of Public Works of Paterson, Wright Aeronautical Corp.

    121 N.J.L. 95 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 8, 1938

    Prosecutor challenges the legality of an ordinance passed by the Board of Public Works of the City of Paterson granting permission to the Wright Aeronautical Corporation and the Erie Railroad Company to lay, maintain and … Altschul v. Mayor, &c., of Jersey City, 8 N. J. Mis. R. 708; Montgomery v. Trenton, 36 N. J. L. 79, 85; Tallon v. Hoboken, 60 Id. 212 (at p. 218). We find no reason for departing from that rule.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Kotinsky v. State

    87 N.J. 430 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 14, 1981

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • Penn v. State

    85 N.J. 112 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1980

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • Mindel v. Township of Franklin

    96 N.J. 259 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 1984

    Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion text
  • Hardin v. Morgan

    70 N.J.L. 484 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 23, 1904

    Brewing Company v. State Board, 36 Vroom 466 . … Flower Hill Cemetery v. North Bergen, 39 Vroom 488 . Exemption from taxation is a favor, and the statutes under which it is allowed must be strictly complied with.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Jones v. Crowley

    57 N.J.L. 222 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1894

    Brown as grantee. Both the Browns are dead, the young man having died shortly after the deed was made. … It was so decided by this court, as early as the year 1824, in Den v. Wright, 2 Halst. 175. This decision was approved, in 1833, in Van Auken v. Hornbeck, 2 Gr. 178 , and more recently, in 1871, in Hunt v.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Pub. Utility Constr., & G. Appliance Workers, Local 274 v. Pub. Serv. Elec. and Gas Co.

    26 N.J. 145 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 17, 1958

    Browning King Co. of N. Y. v. Local 195, 34 N. J. Super. 13, 26 (App. Div. 1955) ; 29 U. S. C. A. § 152. And at the conclusion of the strike, ordinarily they have the right of reinstatement to their former duties. … It is fundamental that arbitration provisions in a bargaining agreement cannot oust the Board’s jurisdiction to prevent unfair labor practices. Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U. S. 1 , 77 S. Ct. 598 , 1 L.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • State v. Inhabitants of Trenton

    60 N.J.L. 394 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1897

    We are referred to the following cases, which, it is said, support the prosecutor’s contention : Hall v. Maher, 56 Hun 81 ; Verdin v. St. Louis, 131 Mo. 26 ; Brown v. Jenks, 98 Cal. 10 ; Excelsior Paving Co. v. … Shaw v. Trenton, 20 Vroom 241 ; McGovern v. Board of Works, 28 Id. 580.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Uricoli v. Police & Fire. Retirem. Sys.

    91 N.J. 62 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 5, 1982

    See, e.g., McFeely v. … See Pangburn v.

    Cited 70 timesPublished
  • Gilligan v. International Paper Co.

    24 N.J. 230 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 1957

    Spindler v. Universal Chain Corp., 11 N. J. 34 (1952). The burden of proving that the employee’s injury was work-connected is on the claimant (Green v. Simpson & Brown Construction Co., 14 N. … Laba v. Newark Board of Education, 23 N. J. 364, 382 (1957); Minter v. Bendix Aviation Corporation, 24 N. J. 128 (1957). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in the Workmen’s Compensation Division.

    Cited 34 timesPublished
  • State Bd., C., of N.J. v. Livesey

    105 N.J.L. 255 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 15, 1928

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Giant Tiger Corp. v. Bd. of Commrs. of City of Trenton

    113 N.J.L. 34 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 4, 1934

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Lathrop v. Mayor of Morristown

    65 N.J.L. 467 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 12, 1900

    This •certiorari brings before the court an ordinance passed January 5th, 1900, by the mayor and board of aldermen of Morristown, appointing four residents of the town as commissioners to “run, mark, lay out and designate

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Moro v. Smith & Hoffman

    6 N.J. Misc. 104 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 26, 1928

    Smith & Hoffman then impleaded the board of education. The board filed a counter-claim and defended on the ground that the mason work was not satisfactorily performed according to the specifications. … Moro’s position was unique in that he confessed to Smith & Hoffman that the work was bad and to the board that it was excellent.

    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.