Case law

Haines v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

73 N.J.L. 82 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 13, 1905

Prior to April 1st, 1903, a petition, duly-signed, had been presented to the board of chosen freeholders of Burlington county under the eighth section of the Road Improvement act of March 22d, 1895 (Gen.

Cooperman v. Board of Education

577 F. Supp. 52 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 1983

That case, while noting that Brown v. … v.

CHARLES HEADWEAR, INC. v. Board of Review

11 N.J. Super. 321 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 18, 1951

Super. 321 (1951) 78 A.2d 306 CHARLES HEADWEAR, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF REVIEW AND LOUIS B. CORTEZ, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. CHARLES HEADWEAR, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF REVIEW AND GEORGE H. … McFeely v. Board of Pension Commissioners of City of Hoboken, 1 N.J. 212, 216 (1948).

Board of Education v. Alpha Education Ass'n

190 N.J. 34 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 21, 2006

See, e.g., D.E.I., Inc. v. … Citing Shepherd v.

Jock v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

371 N.J. Super. 547 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 2, 2004

The Supreme Court, in Loechner v. … as a board member on Shire’s application, created a potential for conflict and required the vacating of the board's resolution.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Board of Review

25 N.J. 221 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 24, 1957

See Browning King Co. of N. Y. v. Local 195, 34 N. J. Super. 13, 26 (App. Div. 1955); Textile Workers Union of America v. Paris Fabric Mills, Inc., 22 N. J. Super. 381, 383 (App. … In Ablondi v. Board of Review, supra, and Mortensen v.

Ardolino v. Florham Park Board of Adjustment

24 N.J. 94 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 8, 1957

J. 335, 343 (1951); Rexon v. Board of Adjustment, Haddonfield, 10 N. J. 1 (1953). … Herman v. Board of Adjustment, Parsippany-Troy Hills Tp., supra, 29 N. J. Super. 164 (App. Div. 1953).

Potts v. Board of Adjustment of Princeton

133 N.J.L. 230 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 14, 1945

Brandon v. Montclair, 124 N. J. L. 135; affirmed, 125 Id. 367; Dubin v. Wich, 120 Id. 469; Schnell v. Township Committee of Ocean, 120 Id. 194; Phillips Oil Co. v. Municipal Council of Clifton, 120 Id. 13; Cook v. … Since he adduced no evidence to sustain it, it was incumbent upon the board to resolve the issue against him. Brandon v. Montclair, supra; Dubin v. Wick, supra.

John Agnew Co. v. Board of Education

83 N.J. Eq. 49 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 13, 1914

Mueller v. Nugent, infra. … Justice Magie, in Board of Freeholders v. Veghte, 7 N. J. L. J. 145, and Chief-Justice Ewing in the old case of LeBranthwait v. Halsey, 9 N. J. Law 4.

Hofbauer v. Board of Police Commissioners

133 N.J.L. 293 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 5, 1945

In June, 1944, prosecutor was called before the Board of Police Commissioners, reprimanded and warned that charges would be preferred against him if he continued his part-time employment. … The argument that the power given the Board of‘ Police Commissioners to formulate rules and regulations is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative duties has no merit. Cf. Alcutt v. Police Commissioners, 66 N. J.

Kreigh v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

62 N.J.L. 178 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1898

Union soldier, and that on December 9th, 1897, he was dismissed by the board without any reason being assigned. … Allen v. Township of Bernards, 28 Vroom 303 ; Schenck v. State, 31 Id. 381 . The relator’s claim must therefore be tested by the act of March 14th, 1895. Gen. Stat., p. 3702.

Weiner v. Board Commissioners, Perth Amboy

106 N.J.L. 276 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 25, 1930

of commissioners, the same shall thereupon be suspended from going into operation, and it shall bo the duty of the board of commissioners to reconsider such ordinance; and if the same is not entirely repealed, the board … To the same effect are Loertscher v. Jersey City, 84 N. J. L. 537, 538; and Smith v. Florham Park, 128 Atl. Rep. 479 ; 3 N. J. Mis. R. 355.

Weeks v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

68 N.J.L. 622 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 2, 1903

The liability of the board of freeholders to answer in damages for injuries received by a person in crossing a county bridge is a statutory one, and is limited to such injuries as *623 directly result from tbe neglect of … the board to properly “erect, rebuild or repair” such bridge.

Campbell v. Board of Adjustment, South Plainfield

118 N.J.L. 116 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 27, 1937

The facts are much like those in Provident Institutions v. Castles, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 773; 168 Atl. Rep. 169 .

Hewett v. Willingboro Board of Education

421 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 15, 2006

See McClain v. Bd. of Educ. Of Woodbury, 30 N.J. 567 , 154 A.2d 569 (1959) (holding board of education fell within statutory exception applicable to a “State or any political subdivision thereof’); Stubaus v. … The court in Darby v.

Cuna v. Board of Fire Commissioners

79 N.J. Super. 264 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 1963

Brower v. Township of Franklin, 119 N. J. L. 417, 424 (Sup. Ct. 1938); Frazer v. Martinsville Engine Co. No. 1, 23 N. J. Super. 389 (Cty. Ct. 1952). … Kelly v. Hackensack Waler Co., 10 N. J. Super. 528 (App. Div. 1950) ; DuCharme v. Columbia Engineering Co., 31 N. J. Super. 167 (App. Div. 1954).

Mongiello Bros. v. Board of Commissioners

10 N.J. Misc. 131 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 20, 1932

J.I. v. New Jersey State Parole Board

441 N.J. Super. 564 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 2015

In contrast, in State v. … V. J.I. contends that the Board violated his right to due process by denying him discovery and a hearing.

State Board of Assessors v. Central Railroad

48 N.J.L. 146 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1886

Co., pros., v. … In Little v.

TSI East Brunswick, LLC v. Zoning Board

215 N.J. 26 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 23, 2013

Id. at 4 , 526 A.2d 109 ; see Sica v. … The Zoning Board was entitled to accept the expert opinion offered by New Vornado’s planner and to reject the contrary opinions offered by TSI’s planner. See Kramer v.