Case law

Kean v. Union Water Co.

52 N.J. Eq. 813 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1894

In deciding the case of Owen v. … For reversal — The Chief-Justice, Garrison, Magie,, Reed, Van Syckel, Brown, Sims, Smith — 8. For affirmance — Dixon, Bogert, Krueger — 3.

Young v. Stafford

86 N.J.L. 422 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 1914

Upon the authority of the case of Burgan v. Civil Service Commission, 84 N. J. … Sullivan v. McOsker was decided on March 3d, 1913, and Burgan v. Civil Service Commission was decided on May 19th, 1913, the opinion in each ca.se being by Mr.

Delaware River Transportation Co. v. Inhabitants of Trenton

85 N.J.L. 479 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 4, 1914

Smith v. New York City, 68 N. Y. 552 ; see State, Bentley v. Jersey City, 1 Dutcher 530. … The cases of Northern Railroad Co. v. Englewood, 33 Vroom 191 , and Dashe v.

Gougeon v. Bd. of Adj. of Bor. of Stone Harbor

54 N.J. 138 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 2, 1969

Much of the difficulty centered around efforts by the intervenors and Board counsel to limit the geographical area to be considered by the Board. … See, Reinauer Realty Corp. v. Borough of Paramus, 34 N. J. 406, 417 (1961). In any event, the parties seem to agree there are 68 lots in single ownership in blocks 99, 100 and 200.

Proprietary Ass'n v. Bd. of Pharmacy of NJ

16 N.J. 62 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 21, 1954

Thus in Crescent Bottling Works v. Board of Pharmacy, 121 N. J. … In Board of Pharmacy v. Quackenbush, 22 N. J. Misc. 334 (C.

Albright v. Johnson

135 N.J.L. 70 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 27, 1946

Phillips v. Borough Council, &c., Teaneck, 120 N. J. L. 45; 198 Atl. Rep. 368 ; affirmed, 122 N. J. L. 485; 5 Atl. Rep. (2d) 698; Grant v. Board of Adjustment of Haddon Heights, 133 N. J. L. 518; 45 Atl. Rep. (2d) 184. … The effect of a gasoline station (Verniero v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Passaic, 134 N. J. L. 71; 45 Atl. Rep. (2d) 890; Dickinson v. City of Plainfield, 122 N. J. L. 63; 4 Atl.

New Jersey Suburban Water Co. v. Town of Harrison

120 N.J.L. 546 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 11, 1938

Hackensack Water Co. v. Public Utility Board, 96 N. J. L. 184. … The United States Supreme Court recently decided the ease of Midland Realty Co. v. Kansas City Power and Light Co., 300 U. S. 109 ; 81 L.

Norelli v. Mutual Savings Fund Harmonia

121 N.J.L. 60 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 16, 1938

See Smith v. Bank of New England, 72 N. H. 4; 54 Atl. Rep. 385 ; Union Manufacturing Co. v. Pitkin, 14 Conn. 174 ; Main Stage Co. v. Longley, 14 Me. 444 ; Badger v. … Wiss & Sons v. H. G. Vogel Co., 86 N. J. L. 618; 92 Atl. Rep. 360 ; Erie Railroad Co. v. S. J. Groves & Sons Co., 114 N. J. L. 216; 176 Atl. Rep. 377 .

State v. Hardcastle

26 N.J.L. 143 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1856

Cited in State v. Browning, 3 Dutch. 535. Affirmed, 3 Dutch. 551; State v. Browning, 4 Dutch. 568 ; State v. Garrabrant, 3 Vr. 445 ; State v. Sullivan, 7 Vr. 90 ; State v. Palmer, 10 Vr. 251 .

Von Neida v. Bennett

116 N.J.L. 320 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 17, 1936

Justice Lloyd in the case of von Nieda v. Bennett, above cited, that that selection was irrevocable on the authority of Woolley v. Flock, 92 N. J. L. 65. … case of Brinkerhoff v.

In re O'Grady

92 N.J. 623 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 5, 1983

ORDER OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report recommending that HAROLD V. … is hereby adopted and that HAROLD V.

Ridgewood Elks Holding Corp. v. Village of Ridgewood

127 N.J.L. 295 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1941

. *296 The State Board decision was not handed down until March 21st, 1939, and in the meantime two assessment dates had gone by. … But that question has been settled to the contrary in the decision of the State Board of Tax Appeals in the11937 case.

City of Camden v. Skokowski

88 N.J. 304 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 3, 1982

The problem here, as in Passaic v. Local Finance Board, 88 N.J. 293 (1982), decided this day, involves the propriety of an emergency appropriation by a municipality under N.J.S.A. 40A:4 — 46. … We affirm essentially for the reasons stated in Passaic v. Local Finance Board, 88 N.J. 293 (1982). We hasten to add that a local governing unit must examine budget requests realistically.

State v. Halsted

39 N.J.L. 402 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1877

State v. Stimson, 4 Zab. 9; State v. Thatcher, 6 Vroom 445 . … Commonwealth v. Smith, 103 Mass. 444 ; Commonwealth v. Farren,. 9 Allen 489 ; Commonwealth v. Boynton, 2 Allen 160 . Mr.

Odabash v. MAYOR AND COUN. DUMONT

65 N.J. 115 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 9, 1974

Ct. 1945); Ridgefield Terrace Realty Co. v. Borough of Ridgefield, 136 N. J. L. 311 (Sup. Ct. 1947); Scarborough Apartments, Inc. v. City of Englewood, 9 N. J. 182 (1952); Zampieri v. River Vale Township, 29 N. … J. 599 (1959); Glen Rock Realty Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Glen Rock, 80 N. J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 1963). In all of these cases relief was granted on the stated thesis. Compare Guaclides v.

Falco v. Kaltenbach

3 N.J. Misc. 333 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 26, 1925

Certiorari is the proper remedy to be pursued, and that should be directed to a review of the determination of the board of adjustment. But such a procedure would accomplish nothing and be unavailing. Biddle v. … We think the facts in this case makes the finding in Ignaciunas v. Risley, 98 N. J. L. 712, controlling.

Chamber of Commerce v. County of Essex & Northern Construction Co.

96 N.J.L. 238 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 20, 1921

by the board of the question as to whether or not the improvement should be made. Without this information, a board cannot decide intelligently the question of improvement. … Hurley v. Trenton, 66 N. J. L. 538. The other two resolutions also fail to authorize appropriations sufficient to meet the cost of carrying out the provisions of the contracts awarded.

Borough of Kenilworth v. Raubinger

15 N.J. 581 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 7, 1954

Appellant next attacks the consent of the Local Government Board. The standards for that board’s action prescribed by R. … The contention is made that this was an impropriety within the principles laid down in this court’s decision in Citizens, etc., Public Funds v. Board of Education, etc., Parsippany-Troy Hills, 13 N.

Londrigan v. McNally

65 N.J.L. 163 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1900

Court of the city of Hoboken, by the relator against said board, for the sum of $140.13, which judgment was ordered paid by resolutions adopted Hovember 2d, 1899. … of chosen freeholders, the grant of jurisdiction over such boards must fail.

Hirschberg v. Borough of Northvale Planning Bd.

236 N.J. 633 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 8, 2019