Case law

Bronston v. Inhabitants of Plainfield

119 N.J.L. 139 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 4, 1937

Durkin Lumber Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 106 N. J. L. 183; Campbell v. Board of Adjustment, South Plainfield, 118 Id. 116. Clearly the denial of the permit was unreasonable. Gabrielson v. Borough of Glen Ridge, 13 N. J. Mis. … R. 142, 147; Meslar v. Township Committee of the Township of Denville, 14 Id. 497; Felter v. The Board of Zoning Adjustment of Glen Rock, 14 Id. 247.

Pension Commission of the Police & Fire Department v. Atlantic City Fire Department Pension Fund

97 N.J.L. 117 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 1922

Chapter 160 of the laws of 1920 has been held to be constitutional by the Court of Errors and Appeals in the case of Hulme v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Trenton, 95 N. J. L. 545. … The case of Schwarzwaelder v. German Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 59 N. J. Eq. 589, is cited to sustain these contentions.

In re Chasan

91 N.J. 381 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 28, 1982

The Board notes the Committee’s reference to pertinent case law. … Klacik v. Kovacs, 111 N.J.Super. 307, 311-2 (App.Div.1970).

Richardson v. Radics

131 N.J.L. 406 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 16, 1944

The County Board of Elections in examining the envelopes containing the ballots posted, according to the provisions of *407 R. … Court found that the unregistered service men could not vote, and since the ballots of the registered voters could not be segregated from the whole, all must be rejected in compliance with the principle laid down in Burkett v.

Kitay v. Quigley

6 N.J. Misc. 623 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 19, 1928

After the refusal of the board of adjustment to reverse the ruling of the building inspector the writ of cerHoran in the instant case was allowed. In the case of Koplin v. … In order to reverse the action of a board of adjustment there must he evidence produced before the court that the action of the hoard of adjustment is wrong. Oxford Construction Co. v. Orange, 4 Id. 515.

Borough of Bergenfield v. Martin

126 N.J.L. 512 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 15, 1941

The State Board dismissed both petitions upon the ground that the 1938 repealer had deprived the board of jurisdiction to entertain appeals relating to the 1937 apportionment. … The magnitude of the task and the incidental pitfalls find illustration in our decisions, as West Orange v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 115 N. J. L. 396; affirmed, 116 Id. 414; Hoboken v. Martin, 123 Id. 442.

In re Pavilonis

98 N.J. 36 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 27, 1984

Report and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board This matter is before the Board on a motion by the Office of Attorney Ethics for reciprocal disciplinary action. … [Maryland State Bar Association, Inc. v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543 , 318 A.2d 811, 814 (Ct.App.1974) ].

Jersey City Redevelopment Agency v. Kugler

58 N.J. 374 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 24, 1971

By a Eebruary 2, 1960 resolution, the Board of Commissioners of Jersey City declared blighted a land area of approximately 24.8 acres. … See State by State Highway Com’r v. Cooper, 24 N. J. 261, cert. den. 355 U. S. 829 , 78 S. Ct. 41 , 2 L. Ed. 2d 42 (1957); Haven Homes v. Raritan Tp., 19 N. J. 239 (1955); Brown v. Murphy, 136 N. J.

Stokes v. New Jersey Pottery Co.

46 N.J.L. 237 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1884

Martin v. Webb, 110 U. S. 7 . … Stow v. Wyse, 7 Conn. 214; C. & N. R. R. Co. v. James, 14 Wis. 325 .

State ex rel. McLean v. Gibson

55 N.J.L. 11 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1892

such boards •and relating to the municipal affairs and departments of such •cities placed under the control and management of such board -and providing for the maintenance of said board.” … The act thus disputed we are of opinion is constitutional •and valid, the reasons for such conclusions being the same as those given in Matkeson v. Caminade and Owens v. Fury, of the present term.

Mayor & Aldermen of Jersey City v. Hennessey

92 N.J.L. 606 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 3, 1919

that the penalty for such violation “shall be recovered in an action of debt by and in the name of the board of health of the State of New Jersey, or by and in the name of any board of health of any municipality of this … In Eldridge v. Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Co., 83 N. J. L. 463, Mr. Justice Garrison, speaking for this court, cites with approval the following excerpt from the opinion in Harrington’s Sons Co. v.

New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Township of Washington

16 N.J. 38 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 21, 1954

Elizabeth v. Cory, 73 N. J. L. 699, 706 (E. & A. 1907); Board of National Missions v. Neeld, 9 N. J. 349, 353 (1952); City of Perth Amboy v. Barker, 74 N. J. L. 127 (Sup. Ct. 1906). … See Stevens Institute of Technology v. State Board, 3 N. J. Misc. 1094 (Sup. Ct. 1925), affirmed 102 N. J. L. 727 (E. & A. 1926), Cooper Hospital v. Camden, 68 N. J. L. 691, 706, 707 (E. & A. 1903).

State ex rel. Wright v. Campbell

74 N.J.L. 82 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1906

In Feurey, Clerk, &c., v. Roe, late Clerk, &c., 6 Vroom 123 , it was held that under an act to provide for a board of chosen freeholders of Hudson county (Pamph. … I am of the opinion, however, that the Election act of 1905 does not apply to the officers of the board of chosen freeholders elected by that board. They are not expressly mentioned in the act.

Lippincott v. T. B. McGuire, Inc.

130 N.J.L. 317 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 1943

in order to procure from that board a certificate of acquisition. … Breithart v. Lurich, 98 N. J. L. 556; Glickfeld v. Venokur, 15 N. J. Mis. R. 522; affirmed, 119 N. J. L. 431. The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

Musconetcong Iron Works v. Borough of Netcong

90 N.J.L. 58 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 1917

This can hardly be called adequate notice, hut no harm was 'done since the prosecutor not only appealed to the county board hut succeeded in its appeal. … State v. Randolph, 25 N. J. L. 427, is relied on. The argument overlooks the changes in the Tax act since 3851). Section 38 (Comp.

Hancock v. Singer Manufacturing Co.

62 N.J.L. 289 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 14, 1898

State Board v. Morris and Essex Railroad Co., 20 Vroom 193 . … So in Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566 , it was held that a tax upon the amount of sales of goods made by an auctioneer was a tax upon the goods sold. So in Brown v.

Matter of Huber

101 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 21, 1985

Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board This matter is before the Board on a Motion for Final Discipline filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics. … Accordingly the Board recommends disbarment. The Board further recommends that Respondent be required to reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.

Adams v. County of Atlantic

137 N.J.L. 648 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 3, 1948

O’Neil v. Johnson, 99 N. J. L. 317; Cooper v. State Board, 114 Id. 10; affirmed, 115 Id. 115; Camden v. Local Gov. Board, 127 Id. 175; Alex. Hamilton Hotel v. Board of Review, 127 Id. 184; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. … New Jersey Unemployment, 128 Id. 611; affirmed, 130 Id. 173; Norton v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 134 Id. 57; City Affairs Committee v.

Beryl Zimmerman and Judy Comment v. Sussex County Educational Service Commission (080861)(Statewide)

237 N.J. 465 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 30, 2019

Spiewak v. Board of Education of Rutherford explained that the Tenure Act “makes tenure a mandatory term and condition of employment.” 90 N.J. 63, 72 (1982). … An administrative agency, including a school board, is subject to having its decisions or actions reviewed under an arbitrary and capricious standard. See, e.g., Dennery v. Bd. of Educ. of Passaic Cty. Reg’l High Sch.

Ishmal v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control

58 N.J. 347 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 24, 1971

. * * *” See, Benedetti v. Bd. of Com’rs of Trenton, 35 N. J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 1955); Voight v. Board of Excise, 59 N. J. L. 358 (Sup. Ct. 1896). … In affirming the findings and conclusions of the Municipal Board, the Director held that the record made before the local board supported an inference that arrangements for the sale and procurement of drugs were concluded