Case law

Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Kaiser

75 N.J.L. 9 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 2, 1908

Virtue v. Freeholders of Essex, 38 Vroom 139 . … This court had occasion, in the case of Watkins v.

Freeman v. Board of Registry

76 N.J.L. 83 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 30, 1907

In defence of the board it is said that it is now impossible-for them to make such a statement as the law requires. … Over sixty had Freeman’s name written in the same handwriting, and the case is stronger in that respect than Hackett v.

Brown v. General Aniline and Film Corp.

65 N.J. 555 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 8, 1974

Smith v. Board of Commissioners

5 N.J. Misc. 390 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 18, 1927

The cases of Armitage v. Newark, 86 N. J. L. 5; Tice v. Long Branch, 98 Id. 214, are not in point on the facts. Our research has revealed no case in which this point has been directly considered. *391 Second. … The cases of McCarty v. Boulevard Commissioners, 91 N. J. L. 142; affirmed, 92 Id. 519; Atlantic Gas, &c., Co. v. Atlantic City, 73 Id. 360, should be applied.

Gish v. Board of Education

74 N.J. 251 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1977

Board of Chosen Freeholders v. State

159 N.J. 565 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1999

Board of Chosen Freeholders v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 637, 642-43 , 710 A.2d 1060 (Law Div.1997). … Board of Chosen Freeholders v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 587, 589 , 710 A.2d 1035 (App.Div.1998). The panel also focused on the phrase “certain judicial costs.” See ibid.

Castellano v. Linden Board of Education

79 N.J. 407 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 9, 1979

the Board and the Linden Educational Association. 3 Eailure on the Board’s part to abide by the terms of such agreement could have subjected the Board to a claim of an unfair labor practice. … argues that the affirmance by the Appellate Division of the finding of sex discrimination herein is contrary to the decision by another panel of the Appellate Division in Gilchrist v.

Board of Education v. Cuff

37 N.J. 54 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 12, 1962

Born v. Board of Adjustment

6 N.J. Misc. 551 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 8, 1928

As was said by this court in Feldman & Pivnick, Incorporated v. Board of Adjustment of East Orange, 6 N. J. Mis. … R. 96], and there is further presumption that the action of the board was right. Silvester v. Princeton, 5 N. J. Adv. R. 1801.

Koogan v. Board of Adjustment

6 N.J. Misc. 562 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 9, 1928

An appeal was taken to the board of adjustment which was requested to change the said zone to business-industrial zone, and the board having considered the application, but with *563 out taking testimony or swearing witnesses … We think the facts of this case fall within the legal rule which is stated in the opinion filed in Born v.

Burg v. Board of Adjustment

6 N.J. Misc. 804 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 27, 1928

The judgment and proceedings under review are affirmed and the writ of certiorari dismissed under authority of Bellofatto et al. v. Montclair, 6 N. J. Mis. R. 512.

Koch v. Board of Health

7 N.J. Misc. 589 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 1929

The case was tried by the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment of nonsuit, as to the township of Midland, a dismissal of the action as against the board of health, and a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Frederick … Thiem talked about the emergency that existed, whereby some three hundred families were without water due to the orders of the state and local boards of health, and at the conversation the defendant told the plaintiff he

Cadien v. Board of Education

2 N.J. Misc. 109 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 3, 1924

These powers seem to have been considered in Fuller v. Board, 78 N. J. L. 107, where it was held that a vote authorizing the purchase did not have the effect of authorizing acquisition by condemnation. … The case of Brown v. Street Lighting District, 69 N. J. L. 485, is invoked on this point.

Williams v. Board of Commissioners

2 N.J. Misc. 918 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 3, 1924

It is urged that under the rule laid down in Haake v. Norwood, 2 N. J. Adv. R. 1046, the ordinance was improperly passed. This is not the first application made for a writ of certiorari to review this ordinance. Mr.

Board of Pharmacy v. Faunce

6 N.J. Misc. 385 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 19, 1928

Board of Justices v. Fennimore

1 N.J.L. 281 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1794

Cited in Orange v. Springfield, 1 South. 186 . See 4 Burr. 2489; 4 Dall. 113 .

Linbarger v. Board of Education

83 N.J.L. 629 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 20, 1912

Holden v. Board of Education

85 N.J.L. 370 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 17, 1913

Dornbusch v. Board Adjustment, Newark

117 N.J.L. 424 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 22, 1937

Hadley v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

73 N.J.L. 197 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 28, 1906

The board of freeholders of Passaic county condemned certain property of Mrs. … National Docks, &c., Co. v. United Companies, 24 Vroom 217 ; Paterson and Newark Railroad Co. v. Newark, 32 Id. 80. The judgment under review should be affirmed.