Case law

Jaclyn Thompson v. Board of Trustees, Teachers'

449 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 2017

Patterson, supra, 194 N.J. at 45-47 (quoting Brunell v. … See Turner v. Comm'r of Soc.

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.

Shapiro v. Board of Education

3 N.J. Misc. 406 · Commissioner of Education, N.J. · Apr 7, 1925

The decisions of tins department, as. well as those of the *407 supreme court, notably that of Davis v. … “if a board of education shall not have made rules, and regulations as aforesaid, then no contract between such board of education and a teacher shall be valid'undess the same be in writing * * * in triplicate, signed by

Karas v. Board of Adjustment

155 N.J. Super. 39 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 1977

A. 40:55D-17(a) (2) provides that an appeal may be taken on a final decision of the board of adjustment or planning board if permitted by local ordinance. … The statute and local ordinance specifically states that an appeal may be taken to the governing body which involves an approval of a board of adjustment or planning board.

Milliken v. Board of Freeholders

14 N.J. Misc. 58 · New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau · Dec 11, 1935

Board of Education v. Cuff

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

Dornbusch v. Board Adjustment, Newark

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

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

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.

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

Board of Pharmacy v. Faunce

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

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 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 .

Castellucci v. Board of Review

174 N.J. Super. 289 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 13, 1980

See Smith v. E. T. L. Enterprises, 155 N.J.Super. 343 (App.Div.1978); St. Vincent’s Hospital v. Finley, 154 N.J.Super. 24 (App.Div. 1977). … Since the remand here we have dealt with the matter at length in Howard v. Board of Review, 173 N.J.Super. 196 (1980), and that determination is conclusively instructive here.

New Jersey State Board of Optometrists v. Lichtman

32 N.J. Super. 278 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 1954

The power of the State Board of Optometrists to make rules is limited to the statutory authority given them by the Legislature. Abelson’s, Inc. v. New Jersey State Board of Optometrists, 5 N. J. 412 (1950). … had treated 15 or 20 union members, of whom perhaps two had told him they had been referred by some one in the union office, who said they would get a discount. *283 Optometry is not a mere trade or craft (Abelson’s, Inc. v.

Meehan v. Board of Excise Commissioners

73 N.J.L. 382 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 7, 1906

See, also, Commonwealth v. Casey, 134 Mass. 194 ; Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657 ; State of New Hampshire v. Corron et al., 62 Atl. Rep. 1044 . … Hoboken v. Goodman, 39 Vroom 217 ; Croker v. Board of Excise of Camden, post.