Case law

Van Buskirk v. Board of Education

78 N.J.L. 650 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 28, 1910

Cont. 21, 462; Russell v. Sa da Bandeira, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 149, 200; Sharpe v. San Paulo Railway, L. R., 8 Ch. 579; Rex v. Peto, 1 Younge & J. 37; Cooper v. Langdon, 9 Mees. & W. 60; Lord & Son v. … No one could waive those provisions save the board of education, or someone authorized by that board to do so.

State v. Board of Township Committee

55 N.J.L. 463 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1893

Nor is it for the flagging and curbing of sidewalks, as in the case of Kirkpatrick v. Commissioners, 13 Vroom 512 . … Agens v. Newark, 8 Vroom 417 ; Kirkpatrick v. Commissioners , 13 Id. 510; Righter v. Newark , 16 Id. 104; Culver v. Jersey City, Id. 256; Reynolds v. Paterson , 19 Id. 435.

Board of Fire Commissioners v. Cascella

326 N.J. Super. 142 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 14, 1998

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 , 666 A.2d 146 (1995). *146 Most recently, the Appellate Division in Nash v. … See State *147 v.

Board of Education v. Township Committee

187 N.J. Super. 540 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 18, 1983

It is clear that a board has an obligation to account for surplus funds and investment income in planning its budget for the ensuing year. Cf. Fair Lawn Bd. of Ed. v. … Its action is, of course, subject to review by the Commissioner and by the State Board for “procedural or substantive arbitrariness.’’ East Brunswick Tp. Bd. of Ed. v.

Bonomo v. NJ State Parole Board

104 N.J. Super. 226 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 17, 1969

Kincaid v. State Parole Board, 53 N.J. Super. 526 ( App. Div. 1959); Pickering v. State, unreported, Docket No. A 88-55 ( App. … See our opinion in Roman v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 104 N.J. Super. 222 , decided simultaneously herewith.

Ferraro v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

228 N.J. Super. 33 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 1988

Plaintiffs obviously assumed that Holmdel had retained the power to zone and therefore applied for a variance before the Holmdel Board of Adjustment. … Therefore, under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70, a variance would be heard by the board of adjustment of the supervising municipality, rather than that of the municipality where the property was located.

J.B. v. New Jersey State Parole Board

444 N.J. Super. 115 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 2016

Doe v. … Clowes v.

Livermore v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

29 N.J.L. 245 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1861

This court held, in The Freeholders of Sussex v. … Brown, J., concurred. Affirmed, 2 Vr. 507 . Cited in Pray v. Jersey City, 3 Vr. 397 .

In Re Franklin Mutual Funds Fee Litigation

388 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 22, 2005

In Haas v. … Indeed, there is no indication how many directors were on the boards of these funds, or which directors sat on these boards, except for an allegation that Charles B. Johnson sat on each and every board.

Jamgochian v. New Jersey State Parole Board

196 N.J. 222 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 6, 2008

Sanchez v. N.J. … State v.

Oughton v. Board of Fire Commissioners

178 N.J. Super. 565 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 1981

Judge Haines was persuaded that the philosophy expressed by the court in Sunset Beach Amusement Corp. v. Belk, 33 N.J. 162 (1960) and Sarner v. … Sunset Beach Amusement Corp. v. Belk, supra, at 168. That underscores the limitation on our authority to award counsel fees.

Board of Chosen Freeholders v. State

311 N.J. Super. 587 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 1998

Applestein v. United Board & Carton Corp.

33 N.J. 72 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1960

Corallo v. Essex County Welfare Board

140 N.J. Super. 414 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 1976

Philpott v. Essex Cty. Welfare Board, 409 U. S. 413, 415 , 93 S. Ct. 590 , 34 L. Ed. 2d 608 (1973). Peter demanded a return of his $826, apparently by a letter dated January 24, 1973. … East Orange v. Palmer, 52 N. J. 329, 336 (1968).

Gowdy v. State Board of Education

84 N.J.L. 231 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 28, 1913

The prosecutrix appealed to the state superintendent of education, who reversed the board of education of the city of Paterson, and the latter in turn appealed to the state board of education, which reversed the finding and … adjudication of the state superintendent, and affirmed the action of the board of education of the city of Paterson.

Egeland v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

405 N.J. Super. 329 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 20, 2009

Wilson v. Brick Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 405 N.J.Super. 189, 197 , 963 A.2d 1208 (App.Div.2009) (citing Wyzykowski v. Rizas, 132 N.J. 509, 518-520 , 626 A.2d 406 (1993)). … In Metzdorf v. Borough of Rumson, 67 N.

OJO v. ESSEX COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 23, 2021

(Ojo v. Decker, Civ. No. 20-5538, D.E. 14.) … Pa. 2013) (noting that although this standard typically applies to municipal entities, it “applies with equal force to supervisory liability claims premised on a ‘policy, practice, or custom’ theory” (citing Brown v.

Dunn v. ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION

203 N.J. 437 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 23, 2010

3 A.3d 1228 (2010) 203 N.J. 437 DUNN v. ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION. Nos. C-66 September Term 2010, 066329 Supreme Court of New Jersey. September 23, 2010. Petition for Certification Denied.

Green v. Simpson & Brown Const. Co.

24 N.J. Super. 422 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 29, 1953

Super. 422 (1953) 94 A.2d 693 ANNIE GREEN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. SIMPSON & BROWN CONSTRUCTION CO., RESPONDENT-APPELLEE. Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County Court Law Division. … Applying the tests given in the Hardt v.

Oughton v. Board of Fire Commissioners

178 N.J. Super. 633 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 22, 1980

That decision, reported in Oughton v. Board of Fire Comm’rs, 168 N. J.Super. 434 (Law Div.1979), was appealed. … The statement accompanying the initial amendatory bill expressly set forth its intention “to nullify the primary effects” of Oughton v. Board of Fire Comm’rs.