Case law

Tp. Comm. of Lakewood Tp. v. Lakewood Water Co. & Bd. of Pub. Utility Comm'rs

54 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1959

Co. v. Dept. of Public Utilities, 7 N.J. 247, 256 (1951). … Central Traction Co. v. Public Utility Board , above.

Rose, Inc. v. BD. OF EDUCATION OF EAST ORANGE

39 N.J. Super. 565 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 22, 1956

ROSE, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EAST ORANGE, IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX, NEW JERSEY, AND A.A. LA FOUNTAIN, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS. … The board of education relies upon the holding in Armitage v. City of Newark, 86 N.J.L. 5 ( Sup. Ct. 1914).

Mesghali v. Bayside State Prison

334 N.J. Super. 617 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 27, 2000

We have previously held that the Board (then Civil Service Commission) was without power to accept untimely appeals. See Murphy v. … Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 , 706 A. 2d 706 (1998); Dennery v. Board of Educ., 131 N.J. 626, 641 , 622 A. 2d 858 (1993).

Santiago v. E.W. Bliss Division

201 N.J. Super. 205 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1985

It was then transferred to defendant equipment brokers, Alexander Brown-Capitol Machine in July 1977, who in turn sold it to plaintiff’s employer in April 1981. … E.g., Brown v. United States Stove Co., 98 N.J. 155 (1984); Soler v. Castmaster, Div. of H.P.M. Corp., supra; O'Brien v. Muskin Corp., supra; Michalko v. Cooke Color & Chem, Corp., supra; Suter v.

Isihos Bros. Partnership v. Township of Franklin

376 N.J. Super. 591 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 2000

In TWC Realty v. … The Board of Adjustment had no power to interfere with the DEP in the exercise of its statutory responsibility and regulatory authority in the area of sewage disposal. See Holgate Prop. Assocs. v.

Medwick v. Bd. of Review, Div. Empl. SEC.

69 N.J. Super. 338 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 3, 1961

Molton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 194 Pa. Super. 190 , 166 A. 2 d 103 ( Super. Ct. 1960); Pomorski v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Rev., 189 Pa. Super. 257 , 150 A. 2 d 145 ( Super. Ct. 1959). … N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(c); Valenti v. Board of Review of U.C.C. of New Jersey, 4 N.J. 287 (1950).

Wilson v. BRICK TP. ZONING BD.

405 N.J. Super. 189 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2009

Further, while expert testimony is often presented to a Board of Adjustment and is found helpful, a Board is not bound to accept the testimony of any expert. See El Shaer v. … Aragon v.

DEPT. OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS v. Cook

282 N.J. Super. 207 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 1995

Super. 207 (1995) 659 A.2d 936 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, LOCAL FINANCE BOARD, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM G. COOK, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. … Nor does the disclosure requirement violate the Fifth Amendment privilege of board members. See State v. Davis, 244 N.J. Super. 180, 197 , 581 *212 A. 2d 1333 (App.Div. 1990); cf. State v.

TWC REALTY PARTNER. v. Zoning Bd.

321 N.J. Super. 216 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 13, 1999

See Gallo v. Salesian Soc'y, Inc., 290 N.J.Super. 616, 660 , 676 A. 2d 580 (App.Div.1996); Regino v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. … See Children's Inst. v. Verona Twp.

Burke v. Township of Franklin

261 N.J. Super. 592 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 26, 1993

Further, the one-board format used in the present case is similar to the one approved by our Supreme Court in Kelly v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 37 N.J. 450 , 181 A. 2d 745 (1962). … In Giammario v. Trenton Bd. of Educ., 203 N.J.

Township of Berkeley Heights v. Division of Tax Appeals

68 N.J. Super. 364 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 1961

See also City of Passaic v. Passaic County Board of Taxation, 18 N. J. 371 to 377 (1955). … Borough of Totowa v. Passaic County Board of Taxation, 5 N. J. 454, 464 (1950).

Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. DIV. OF UNEMP. COMP.

29 N.J. Super. 26 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 17, 1953

TEA COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANT, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT; MARY DRUSDOW, ANNA L. … Ablondi v. Board of Review, 8 N.J. Super. 71, 76 ( App. Div. 1950); cf. Sandoval v. Colorado Industrial Commission, 110 Colo. *31 108, 130 P. 2 d 930 ( Sup. Ct. 1942); Local Union No. 11 v.

Arlington Associates v. Township Council of Parsippany-Troy Hills

118 N.J. Super. 418 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 3, 1972

We do not find McAlpine v. Garfield Water Com’n, 135 N. J. L. 497 (E. & A. 1947), or Highpoint, Inc. v. Bloomfield Planning Board, 80 N. J. Super. 570 (Law Div. 1963), rev’d 87 N. J. Super. 58 (App. … The proper rule is that all board members need only be sufficiently informed of all matters before the board prior to a decision so as to insure an intelligently advised vote. See Taub v. Pirnie, 3 N. Y. 2d 188, 165 N.

Goebelbecker v. STATE, BD. OF REVIEW

53 N.J. Super. 53 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 1, 1958

See also Kinter v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 180 Pa. Super. 529 , 119 A. 2 d 639 ( Super. Ct. 1956); Willis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 177 Pa. Super. 68 , 110 A. 2 d 742 ( Super. … Ct. 1955); Spotts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 176 Pa. Super. 484 , 109 A. 2 d 212 ( Super. Ct. 1954); Barr v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 172 Pa. Super. 389 , 93 A. 2 d 877 ( Super.

Softexture Yarns, Inc. v. BD. OF REVIEW, DIV. EMPL. SEC.

59 N.J. Super. 57 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 1960

Super. 57 (1960) 157 A.2d 142 SOFTEXTURE YARNS, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. … Not having done so, the Board should have honored the request for a rehearing, especially since that request was made within the ten days fixed by rule BR -4.02. In Krauss v. A. & M.

Citizens United to Protect the Maurice River & Its Tributaries, Inc. v. CITY OF MILLVILLE PLAINNING BD.

395 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 2007

See also Centex Homes v. … We are also satisfied that the Board's factual findings, as set forth in its resolution, were sufficiently articulated and were supported by substantial credible evidence in the record before the Board. Lang v.

Nini v. MCCC

406 N.J. Super. 547 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 2009

In Battaglia v. … See also Squeo v.

Campus Assocs. v. Zon. Bd. of Adj.

413 N.J. Super. 527 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 2010

Super. 527 CAMPUS ASSOCIATES L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the TOWNSHIP OF HILLSBOROUGH, Defendant-Respondent. DOCKET NO. A-0690-08T2. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. … In arguing that plaintiff lacks standing, the Board relies on our holding in Spinnaker Condominium Corp. v.

Carroll v. BD. OF ADJUSTMENT OF CITY OF JERSEY

15 N.J. Super. 363 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 24, 1951

THOMAS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY AND EDWARD J. … Lane v. Bigelow, 135 N.J.L. 195 ( E. & A. 1947); Tzeses v. Barbahenn, 125 N.J.L. 643 ( E. & A. 1941).

Solid Rock Baptist Church v. Carlton

347 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 2002

Moore v. … Board of Trustees, Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, 281 N.J.Super. 459 , 658 A. 2d 327 (Ch.Div.1995) with Church of Christ at Centerville v. Carder, 105 Wash. 2d 204 , 713 P. 2d 101 (1986). In Watson v.