Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

10,000+ results

1.23s

  • Yates v. FRANKLIN TP. BD. OF ADJ.

    112 N.J. Super. 156 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 18, 1970

    On October 16, 1969, the defendant Board of Adjustment adopted a resolution recommending the aforesaid variance. … See also Savonick v. Lawrence Tp., 91 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (Law Div. 1966). *159 It is elementary that there is a definite need for fire protection in every municipality within this State.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Teaneck Bd. of Ed. v. Teaneck Teachers Ass'n

    185 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1982

    Super. 269 (1982) 448 A.2d 487 TEANECK BOARD OF EDUCATION, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. TEANECK TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued June 8, 1982. … The Teaneck Board of Education (Board) contends that the grievance pertains to a subject matter outside the legal scope of negotiations, and hence was not arbitrable.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Klotz v. BD. OF ADJUST. OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS

    90 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 15, 1966

    Super. 295 (1966) 217 A.2d 168 HAROLD KLOTZ, PLAINTIFF, v. … Frizen v. Poppy, 17 N.J. Super. 390 ( Ch. Div. 1952); Giordano v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Dumont, 137 N.J.L. 740 ( E. & A. 1948).

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • State v. Carroll

    456 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 2018

    witness at Brown's trial. … In United States v.

    Cited 15 timesPublished
  • Singer Supermarkets, Inc. v. HILLSDALE BD., ADJ.

    183 N.J. Super. 285 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 1982

    Super. 285 (1982) 443 A.2d 1082 SINGER SUPERMARKETS, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF HILLSDALE, NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND ALFRED J. … Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 762 , 96 *289 S.Ct. 1817, [1825] 48 L.Ed. 2d 346 (1976); Bates v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Kalman v. Grand Union Co.

    183 N.J. Super. 153 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 8, 1982

    KALMAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE GRAND UNION COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued January 11, 1982. … Bd. of Pharmacy v. Quackenbush & Co., 22 N.J. Misc. 334, 335 , 39 A. 2d 28 (C.P. 1940).

    Cited 30 timesPublished
  • Deerhurst Estates v. Meadow Homes, Inc.

    71 N.J. Super. 255 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 1961

    Section V December 23, 1952. … See Hilton Acres v. Klein, 35 N.J. 570 (1961); Levin v. Livingston, supra, 35 N.J., at p. 512; Gruber v. Raritan Tp., 68 N.J. Super. 118, 130-131 ( Law Div. 1961); cf. Kotlarich v. Ramsey, 51 N.J. Super. 520, 526 ( App.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • RK v. Dept. of Human Services

    215 N.J. Super. 342 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 1987

    State v. Matulewicz, 101 N.J. 27, 30 (1985). … See Malvasi v. Malvasi, 167 N.J.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Black United Fund of New Jersey, Inc. v. City of East Orange

    339 N.J. Super. 462 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 2001

    BUF appealed the Board’s ruling to the Tax Court and moved for summary judgment seeking exemption from taxation under the same provisions as before the Board. Black United Fund v. … As stated in 1711 Third Ave., Inc. v.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • LANCE BROWN VS. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY (NEW JERSEY DIVISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS)

    New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 2020

    A-1518-18T1 LANCE BROWN, Complainant-Appellant, v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY,1 Respondent-Respondent. … Russo v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Retirement Sys., 206 N.J. 14, 27 (2011); Clowes v.

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • City of Newark v. (497) BLOCK 1854

    244 N.J. Super. 402 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 15, 2011

    Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams , Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co ., and Township of Montville v. … Kazin v.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • Angiola v. Bd. of Trustees

    359 N.J. Super. 552 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 2003

    See Maynard v. Board of Trustees of the Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund, 113 N.J. 169, 172-73 , 549 A. 2d 1213 (1988); Cattani v. … Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen's Retirement System, 69 N.J. 578, 583-84 , 355 A. 2d 625 (1976) and Russo v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Gonzalez v. State-Operated Sch. Dist.

    345 N.J. Super. 175 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2001

    Witkowski v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc., 136 N.J. 385, 397 , 643 A. 2d 546 (1994). … Mayflower Securities Co. v. Bureau of Securities, 64 N.J. 85, 93 , 312 A. 2d 497 (1973).

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Hartmann v. Maplewood School Transportation Co.

    109 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 1970

    HARTMANN, IND., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. MAPLEWOOD SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION CO., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, BOARD OF EDUCATION, TOWNSHIPS OF MAPLEWOOD AND SOUTH ORANGE, AND T. WILLIAM VAIL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. … Braff argued the cause for respondent, Board of Education, Township of Maplewood and South Orange ( Messrs. Braff, Litvak & Ertag, attorneys). PER CURIAM.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • I/M/O Absentee Ballots Cast by Five Residents of Trenton Psychiatric Hospital

    331 N.J. Super. 31 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 2000

    In Carroll v. … Reynolds v. *38 Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 560 , 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1380 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 526 (1964) ; Gangemi v. Rosengard, 44 N.J. 166, 170 , 207 A.2d 665 (1965) .

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • DL v. Bd. of Educ. of Princeton

    366 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 2004

    Super. 269 D.L. and Z.Y. on Behalf of Minor children T.L. and K.L., Petitioners-Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCETON REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent-Respondent. … Our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the Board's decision is "unreasonable, unsupported by the record or violative of the legislative will." Capodilupo v. Bd. of Ed. of W.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Antonelli v. Planning Bd. of Waldwick

    77 N.J. Super. 119 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 1962

    AMSTER, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF WALDWICK, DEFENDANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. Argued October 19, 1962. Decided October 31, 1962. *121 Mr. … In Newman v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • In re the Denial of Private Detective License of Hackett

    190 N.J. Super. 300 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 1983

    In Fay v. … See, e.g., Matthews v. Florida, 463 F.2d 679, 681 (5 Cir.1972); Brown v. Resor, 407 F.2d 281 (5 Cir.1969), cert. den. 399 U.S. 933 , 90 S.Ct. 2249 , 26 L.Ed.2d 806 (1970); Nix v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Errington v. MANSFIELD TP. BD. OF ED.

    100 N.J. Super. 130 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 1968

    ERRINGTON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MANSFIELD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, IN THE COUNTY OF WARREN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND CATHERINE D. HARSHA, WILLIAM MANNON, NORMA CREGAR, JAMES A. KNAPP, MYRTLE DARCY AND JAMES R. … as members of the board."

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Jones v. Buford

    132 N.J. Super. 209 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 1975

    As pointed out in Myers v. Cedar Grove Tp., 36 N. … Como Farms, Inc. v. Foran, 6 N. J. Super. 306, 311 (App. Div. 1950); and see, Clark v. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. L. 565, 581 (E. & A. 1898); Fagan v. Hoboken, 85 N. J. L. 297, 299 (E. & A. 1913).

    Cited 1 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.