Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
1.14s
Lucas v. Board of Commissioners
130 N.J.L. 534 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 16, 1943
Cited 1 timesPublished260 N.J. Super. 390 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 17, 1992
See the explanation of such classification in Cohen v. Emerson Bd. of Educ., 225 N.J.Super. 324 , 327 n. 1, 542 A.2d 489 (App.Div.1988). … The State Board cited as authority for this proposition Sayreville Educ. Ass’n v. Board *394 of Educ., 193 N.J.Super. 424 , 474 A.2d 1091 (App.Div.1984).
Cited 1 timesPublished208 N.J. Super. 415 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 1986
See DiGirolamo v. Newark, 2 N.J.Tax 323, 326-328 (Tax Ct.1981). … See Group Health Ins. of N.J. v. Howell, 40 N.J. 436, 445 (1963).
Cited 2 timesPublishedBrown v. Delaware River Port Authority
10 F. Supp. 3d 556 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2014
BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Andre Brown, is an African-American police sergeant with defendant Delaware River Port Authority (“DRPA”). … See Scott v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFrangella v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
81 N.J. 279 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 30, 1979
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textMc Clellan v. Board of Trustees
77 N.J. 503 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 1978
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textDel Giudice v. Board of Health
73 N.J. 47 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 5, 1977
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textKaufman v. Paterson Board of Education
68 N.J. 283 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 8, 1975
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textHerlich v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
58 N.J. 598 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 7, 1971
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textGreen v. Essex County Welfare Board.
56 N.J. 473 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 1, 1970
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textMullin v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
44 N.J. 402 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 7, 1965
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textUnited Board & Carton Corp. v. Britting
33 N.J. 326 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 19, 1960
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textPennyton Homes, Inc. v. Planning Board
40 N.J. 503 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 1, 1963
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textBriggs v. Passaic Board of Education
11 N.J. 412 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 16, 1953
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textPrendergast v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
28 N.J. 39 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 29, 1958
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textState v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
63 N.J.L. 57 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 27, 1899
Freeholders of Camden, 18 Vroom 454 ; Simon v. Hoboken, 23 Id. 367; Bilderbaek v. Freeholders of Salem, ante p. 55. … Daily v. Freeholders of Essex, 29 Vroom 319 .
Cited 3 timesPublishedNilsen v. New Jersey Parole Board
122 N.J. 196 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 26, 1990
Cited 0 timesPublishedNo opinion textState v. Board of Public Works
58 N.J.L. 362 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1895
The principal case relied On to justify such contention is that of Avon v. Neptune City, reported in 28 Vroom 362 . … For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Depue, Garrison, Gummere, Lippincott, Ludlow, Magie, Van Syokel, Bogert, Brown, Sims, Smith, Talman. 14. For reversal—None.
Cited 4 timesPublishedState v. Board of Public Works
58 N.J.L. 536 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1896
Halsey v. Newark, 25 Vroom 102 . To effectuate the purposes of the company, an ordinance of the board of public works was procured. This ordinance was passed June 19th, 1893. … McWilliams v. King, 3 Vroom 21 , 25; Hunt v. Lambertville, 17 Id. 59.
Cited 4 timesPublished273 N.J. Super. 72 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1994
Since involuntary loss of work-force membership is the fundamental predicate of unemployment compensation, see, e.g., Brambila v. Board of Review, 124 N.J. 425, 440 , 591 A.2d 605 (1991) and Self v. … See, e.g., Carpet Remnant Warehouse, Inc. v. Department of Labor, 125 N.J. 567, 587 , 593 A.2d 1177 (1991). We are satisfied that the agency interpretation here was contrary to both. In Merkel v.
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna