Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.59s
In Re Petition of Monmouth Consolidated Water Co.
47 N.J. 251 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 6, 1966
TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN, APPELLANTS, v. … The board should weigh all of these factors and while no controlling weight should be given to purely local considerations, they should not be ignored. Compare Washington Twp. v.
Cited 7 timesPublished51 N.J.L. 140 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1888
In the case of King v. … State v. Bentley, 3 Zab. 532; State v. Brannin, Id. 484; State, Longstreet, pros., v. Jones, 9 Vroom 83 .
Cited 4 timesPublishedJohn P. Callaghan, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.
110 N.J.L. 390 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 27, 1933
Franklin Lumber Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 102 N. J. L. 9, 715. … It will be observed that the board is not a party to the suit, and that there is no intimation of fraud or collusion, as for example in Chism v. Schipper, 51 N. J. L. 1.
Cited 3 timesPublishedReilly v. Mayor of Jersey City
64 N.J.L. 508 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 26, 1900
Ayres v. Newark, 20 Vroom 170 . … Dodd v. Camden, 27 Vroom 258 .
Cited 4 timesPublished232 N.J. 377 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 9, 2018
Cited 0 timesPublished15 N.J. 82 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 29, 1954
In that case the Board had relied on Galveston Electric Co. v. … Ct. 1928), and in line with an *96 earlier ruling of the Board, Flanagan v.
Cited 3 timesPublished41 N.J.L. 552 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1879
The recent case of State v. … . & E. 338; Taylor v. Newman, 4 B. & S. 89; Buckmaster v. Reynolds, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 62, and United States v.
Cited 22 timesPublished129 N.J.L. 290 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 30, 1942
In Fredericks v. Board of Health of West Hoboken, 82 N. J. L. 200; 82 Atl. … Compare McGrath v. Bayonne, 85 N. J. L. 188; 89 Atl. Rep. 48 ; Civil Service *292 Commission v. Rife, 128 N. J. L. 503; 27 Atl. Rep. (2d) 214; Skladzien v. Board of Education of Bayonne, 12 N. J. Mis. R. 602; 173 Atl.
Cited 5 timesPublished75 N.J. 101 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 17, 1977
L. at 243] Similarly, in Washington National Insurance Co. v. Board of Review, 1 N. … In State v. Brown, 22 N. J. 405 (1956), this Court held that a conviction of second degree murder, a crime not punishable by death, did not trigger the statute of limitations so as to retroactively bar the indictment.
Cited 39 timesPublished64 N.J.L. 123 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 13, 1899
Gardner v. State, 1 Zab. 557; State v. Hancock, 6 Vroom 537 ; United New Jersey, &c., Co. v. Jersey City , 26 Id. 129; State, Morris Canal, &c., Co. v. Betts, 4 Zab. 555; Morris Canal and Banking Co. v. … See also Gilkerson v. Brown, 61 Ill. 486 . The principle that regulates the taxation of sucli property is illustrated by comparing the two classes of cases above-cited.
Cited 1 timesPublishedBergen County Utilities Authority v. Sal-Car Transfer Systems, Inc.
121 N.J. 665 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 30, 1990
Cited 0 timesPublished54 N.J. 311 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1969
State v. Allen, 104 N. J. Super. 187 (App. Div. 1969). … He informed the Board that he *314 could and would pay $500 of it.
Cited 4 timesPublishedCommercial Cleaning Corp. v. Sullivan
47 N.J. 539 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 12, 1966
Somers Construction Co. v. Board of Education, 198 F. Supp. 732 (D. N. J. 1962); Malan Const. Corp. v. Board of County Road Com'rs, 187 F. Supp. 937 (E. D. Mich. 1960); Day v. City of Beatrice, 169 Neb. 858 , 101 N. … Ct. 1944); American Water Corporation v. Borough of Florham Park, 5 N. J. Misc. 969, 139 A. 169 (Sup. Ct. 1927); Kelly v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County, 90 N. J. L. 411 (Sup. Ct. 1917); Faist v.
Cited 38 timesPublished63 N.J.L. 195 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 27, 1899
L. 1871, p. 210) expressly preserved to a board of education thereby constituted the powers and duties of the pre-existing board. … The constitutionálity of this act was upheld in Oler v. Ridgeway, 26 Vroom 10 , and the Camden board of education is now organized under it.
Cited 1 timesPublishedCity of Plainfield v. Public Service Electric and Gas Company
82 N.J. 245 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 5, 1980
Co. v. Board of Public Utility Comm’rs, 87 N.J.L. 128, 130-131 (Sup.Ct.1915). … DeSoto Parish School Board, 585 F.2d 726, 729 (5 Cir. 1978); Cloverlanes Bowl, Inc. v. Gordon, 46 Mich.App. 518, 524 , 208 *259 N.W.2d 598, 602 (Ct.App.1973); Williams v.
Cited 61 timesPublishedSchnell v. Township Committee of the Township of Ocean
120 N.J.L. 194 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 22, 1938
Somers v. Bradley Beach, 115 N. J. L. 135; Hendey v. Ackerman, 103 Id. 305; Fonda v. O’Donohue, 109 Id. 584; Linden Methodist Episcopal Church v. Linden, 113 Id. 188; St. Mary’s, &c., Church v. … Board of Adjustment of New Brunswick, 14 N. J. Mis. R. 288; Marvin v. Board of Adjustment of Westfield, 5 Id. 668.
Cited 3 timesPublishedBoss Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Com'rs of Atlantic City
40 N.J. 379 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 1, 1963
In Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. … Deitsch v. Board of Liquor Lincense Comm’rs, 58-1 U. S. Tax Cas. ¶ 9496, at p. 68, 334 (Md. Cir. Ct. 1958).
Cited 36 timesPublishedCity of Hoboken v. Division of Tax Appeals
134 N.J.L. 594 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 18, 1946
Gannon v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 N. J. L. 450; Camden County Realty Co. v. State Board, 131 Id. 132; Garfield v. State Board, Id. 364. … Rutgers College v. Piscataway Township, 134 N. J. L. 85. The president’s residence is definitely exempt. Piscataway Township v. State Board, 129 N. J. L. 261; 131 Id. 158.
Modified on other grounds by City of Hoboken v. Division of Tax Appeals & Finance, 136 N.J.L. 328 (1947)Cited 7 timesPublished173 N.J. 258 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 23, 2002
One prior case, Escoett v. … See Hart v.
Cited 2 timesPublished49 N.J.L. 376 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1887
Lindabury v. Freeholders of Ocean County, 18 Vroom 417 . The county auditor resists the application for mandamus against him. … Like a judgment against the county, it is not the proper subject of audit either by the board or the county auditor, and should not have been referred to the auditor by the board.
Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna