Case law

Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Freeman

44 N.J.L. 631 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1882

This concession militates strongly against the legality of his demand, for it is a general principle that no public officer can be entitled to compensation for his public services save by express enactment, Demarest v. … But the ground onwhich, in the brief of counsel, the sheriff’s right is specially placed, is, that it has been the long- *634 continued usuage of the boards of chosen freeholders in the respective counties to allow these

Essex Public Road Board v. State

52 N.J.L. 414 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1890

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, «Garrison, Magie, Brown, Clement, Cole, Smith. 8. For reversal—None.

Shachat v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

15 N.J. Misc. 216 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 10, 1937

Landell v. Board of Conservation & Development

102 N.J.L. 441 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 1926

Beuscher v. Board of Education, Waldwick

125 N.J.L. 616 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 7, 1941

The defendant Board of Education seeks a change of venue from Hudson to Bergen County. Although the rule authorized depositions none were taken.

Board of Education, Linden v. Vail

113 N.J. Eq. 113 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 28, 1933

Alby v. Essex Public Road Board

51 N.J.L. 439 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1889

In March, 1871, Bloomfield avenue was laid out by The Essex Public Eoad Board through the townships of Bloomfield and Montclair. … Ropes v. Essex Public Road Board, 11 Vroom 64 . The supplement of March 17th, 1870 (Pamph.

Milliken v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

77 N.J.L. 170 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 9, 1908

It is sought to support this nonsuit under the authority of Creighton v. … The conditions present in the case under consideration differ materially from those reviewed in Creighton v. Freeholders of Hudson, supra.

Ruby v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

88 N.J.L. 481 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 21, 1916

This writ was allowed the prosecutors, who are taxpayers of the county of Hudson, to review the proeeed- ■ ings of the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Hudson for the improvement of the Newark turnpike road lying … In the absence of legal limitations the board might do the work by contract, or by day work through county employes, or by their own physical exertions.

State v. Summit Board of Health

46 N.J.L. 99 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1884

In the case of Darlings v. … The later case of Woodworth v.

Sefton v. Board of Conservation & Development

102 N.J.L. 466 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 1, 1926

State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

39 N.J.L. 632 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1877

State v. Halsted, ante p. 402. … In State, Gregory, pros., v.

Kimberline v. Planning Board of Camden

73 N.J. Super. 80 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 1, 1962

An examination of the record of the proceedings before the planning board shows a compliance with the statutory requirements as set forth in Wilson v. … In Wilson v.

De Lorenzo v. Board of Review

53 N.J. 143 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 20, 1969

But the Appeal Tribunal, which recited the factual dispute, did not resolve it, and the Board of Review said no more than that it agreed with the Appeal Tribunal. … As we have said, neither the Appeal Tribunal nor the Board of Review made findings of fact upon that disputed subject. We therefore remand the matter to the.

Trauma Nurses, Inc. v. Board of Review

242 N.J. Super. 135 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 1990

See Provident Inst. for Sav. in Jersey City v. Div. of Employ. Sec., 32 N.J. 585, 590 , 161 A. 2d 497 (1960); Bogue Electric Co. v. Board of Review, 21 N.J. 431, 435 , 122 A. 2d 615 (1956); Gilchrist v. … Co. v.

Dilts v. Franklin Township Planning Board

272 N.J. Super. 253 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 1993

Plaintiffs have overcome the presumption of validity accorded to local Boards in the decision-making process as set forth in Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment of Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268, 286 , 212 A.2d 153 (1965); Ardolino v. … Florham Park Bd. of Adjustment, 24 N.J. 94, 105 , 130 A.2d 847 (1957); and Kessler v. Bowker, 174 N.J.Super. 478, 486 , 417 A.2d 34 (App.Div.1979).

Van Allen v. Board of Commissioners

197 N.J. Super. 443 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 1984

Fredericks v. Board of Health, 82 N.J.L. 200 (Sup.Ct.1912). … West Milford Planning Board v. West Milford, 123 N.J.Super. 135 (Law Div.1973). It may have concluded that good tax collectors may be found more readily if they have the right to regulate their own hours.

Sutherland v. Board of Street & Water Commissioners

61 N.J.L. 436 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1898

His position was under the control of that board, and on the day named tlier board passed the following resolution: *437 Resolved, that for the purpose of economizing in the salary list in the bureau of engineering and survey … Evans v. Freeholders of Hudson, 24 Vroom 585 ; Newark v. Lyon, Id. 632 ; Boylan v. Newark, 29 Id. 133.

Booker v. New Jersey State Parole Board

265 N.J. Super. 191 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 1993

In Booker v. New Jersey State Parole Board, A-3724-91T3, and in Fitzpatrick v. New Jersey State Parole Board, A-4982-91T3, the determinations of the New Jersey State Parole Board are affirmed. In Nelson v. … Evans v. New Jersey State Parole Board, A- *197 1940-92T2; Secor v. New Jersey State Parole Board, A-4810-90T4 (which may be moot due to the petitioner's release on parole), and Amiditis v.

Howell v. Essex County Road Board

32 N.J. Eq. 672 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1880

State v. City of Newark, 3 Dutch. 186; Tide Water Co. v. Coster, 3 C. E. Gr. 519 ; Matter of Drainage of Lands, 6 Vr. 497 ; State, Agens v. City of Newark, 8 Vr. 415 ; People v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 N. Y. 419 . … Morrow v. Dows, 1 Stew.