Case law

State ex rel. Dugan v. Farrier

47 N.J.L. 383 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1885

To the same effect is Corrigan v. Duryea, 11 Vroom 266 . Said Mr. Justice Daniel, in Wright v. Mattison, 18 How. (U. … Scadding v. Lorant, 3 H. L. Cas. 418.

Jeffries v. Mayor of Atlantic City

122 N.J.L. 408 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 2, 1939

The rule to show cause before us is why a writ of mandamus should not issue directing the Mayor and Board of Commissioners of Atlantic City to include in the budget for Atlantic *409 City for the year 1939 a sum sufficient

State v. Graves

60 N.J. 441 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 22, 1972

State v. Zucconi, 50 N. J. 361, 363 (1967); see State v. Seefeldt, 51 N. J. 472, 482 (1968). … United States v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 831 , 91 S. Ct. 62 , 27 L. Ed. 2d 62 (1970) ; United States v. Browney, 421 F. 2d 48 (4th Cir. 1970) ; Spahr v.

Kimberley School v. Town of Montclair

137 N.J.L. 402 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 16, 1948

Carteret Academy v. State Board of Taxes and Assessments, supra. … State Board, 102 N. J. L. 525; affirmed, 104 Id. 165; Trenton v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 127 Id. 105; affirmed, 128 Id. 320; Dana College v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 14 N. J. Mis.

O'Neill v. City of Bayonne

99 N.J.L. 430 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 4, 1924

It is not questioned but that the board of commissioner's who appointed the respondent was a lawfully constituted board .clothed with the power' to make the appointment. … See Murphy v. Freeholders of Hudson County, 92 N. J. L. 244, where Mr.

Black v. Shreve

13 N.J. Eq. 455 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1860

Bispham, John Chambers, Joseph Brown, Nathan Atkinson, A. B. Wood, stockholders in the Delaware and Atlantic Bailroad Company, send greeting.” These are twenty-one out of the thirty-seven stockholders. … borrowed of John Black, Joseph Smith, and Benjamin Jones, who are also stockholders in the said company, the sum of $35,000, to be applied toward the completion of the said road, and to secure the payment thereof, the said board

Baker v. City of East Orange

95 N.J.L. 365 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 24, 1920

the action of the state board was based. … City of Camden v. Allen, 26 N. J. L. 398. Taxes are, in legal contemplation, neither debts nor contractual obligations, but are, in the strictest sense of the word, exactions (Board of Freeholders of Atlantic County v.

Blum v. INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO.

42 N.J. 389 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 1, 1964

Trades Council v. … The Supreme Court held that the action was preempted since the Board arguably had jurisdiction though it could not grant damages of the type sought by the plaintiff. See Smith v.

Dodd v. Francisco

68 N.J.L. 490 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 10, 1902

Dodd v. State Board of Health, 38 Vroom 463 . … In this respect the board resembles boards of assessment whose proceedings involve the exercise of judicial functions (Peckham v.

Carson v. Kalisch

89 N.J.L. 458 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 26, 1916

In Gage v. Clark, 51 N. J. L. 97, a contested election case, Mr. … Justice Dixon in Johnson v. Allen, 55 N. J. L. 400, a contested election case. The learned justice (on p. 401) said: “If the statute had prescribed verification by the oath of the contestant himself, as in Kirk v.

Matter of Strickland

87 N.J. 575 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 3, 1981

is before the Board based upon a presentment filed by the District V Ethics Committee. … Respondent has been employed for the past three years by the Essex County Welfare Board.

United New Jersey Railroad & Canal Co. v. National Docks & New Jersey Junction Connecting Railway Co.

57 N.J.L. 523 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1895

The act of' 1893 calls for only “a contract,” and the board may contract by resolution unless some additional solemnity be expressly required. Jersey City v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 26 Vroom 203 . … Dodge v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 16 Stew. Eq. 351; S. C. on appeal, 18 Id. 366; Read v. Camden, 25 Vroom 347, 374 . We find no reason for denying the legality of the resolutions, and they are affirmed, with costs.

Anderson v. Myers

77 N.J.L. 186 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 9, 1908

The remark of the late Justice Lippincott, in Manahan v. … So it was held by this court in cases where the relator claiming the office had failed himself to qualify by taking the oath (Hayter v. Benner, supra; Manahan v.

Breese v. Hutchins

11 N.J. Misc. 74 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 1933

Under the second point, the petitioners argue that the board of adjustment was without jurisdiction to revoke the permits which had been granted by the building department and rely upon the case of Losick v. … Jannarone v. Board of Adjustment of the Town of Nutley, 9 N. J. Mis. R. 210; 153 Atl. Rep. 256 .

Dienstag v. Fagan

74 N.J.L. 418 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 25, 1907

Mitchell, v. Tolan, 4 Vroom. 195 ; Unwin v. Jersey City, 31 Id. 141; Oliver v. Jersey City, 34 Id. 634, 639. … A new board at the same time attempted to exercise the functions of the office. It was held ■that the new board could not thus become de facto officers. In Cohn v.

Hirsch v. Burk

83 N.J.L. 146 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 10, 1912

Morton v. Power, 33 Minn. 521 . The opinion in Board of Water Commissioners v. … Although they were in a sense a body corporate, yet they were amenable to general acts of the legislature concerning municipal boards or departments. A case very similar to the one under consideration is Cohn v.

Dorsey Motors, Inc. v. Davis

13 N.J. Misc. 620 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 13, 1935

In Deborah Jewish, &c., Society v. State Board of Health, 7 N. J. Mis. R. 418; 145 Atl. … Rep. 593 , to set aside a decision of a board of adjustment and to review an ordinance. In DeVito v. Pearsall, &c., Borough of Rumson, 115 N. J.

Sykes v. Heinzman

100 N.J.L. 12 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 16, 1924

was amended so as to include judicial powers among those to be distributed among the various departments; and, in construing the scope -of the effect of this amendment the Court of Errors and Appeals, in the case of Foley v. … This power, therefore, was either transferred to the new board of commissioners by the provision of section 4 of the statute above set out or it did not pass to the board at all.

Shim v. Rutgers-The State University

191 N.J. 374 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 14, 2007

R & R Mktg., L.L.C. v. Brown-Forman Corp., 158 N.J. 170, 175 , 729 A.2d 1 (1999). … The State Board of Higher Education cannot make an exception to this regulation.

State v. Skinkle

49 N.J.L. 641 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1887

State v. Hammer, 13 Vroom 438 ; Payne v. Mahon, 15 Vroom 213 . … At all events, the road board has not such legal status as will authorize it to intervene. The views above expressed are supported by numerous authorities. The leading case on the subject is that of Darlington v.