Case law

State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

55 N.J.L. 112 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1892

bond the board refused to accept. … In Benedict v. Howell, 10 Vroom 224 , Mr.

Skillman v. Board of Police Commissioners

64 N.J.L. 489 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 26, 1900

Clearly the board had power to investigate the charge, and as they declined to exercise their jurisdiction on an erroneous opinion that they were without authority, a mandamus should be awarded. King v. … Justices of Kent, 14 East 395; Regina v. Leicester, 15 Q. B. 671; Regina v. Mayor of Monmouth, L. R., 5 Q. B. 251; Stryker v. Skillman, 2 Gr. 189 . Let a peremptory writ issue, pursuant to the rule.

Erisman v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

64 N.J.L. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 28, 1900

Benedictine Sisters v. Elizabeth, 21 Vroom 347 . The act itself recognizes review by -certiorari and limits the time within which after confirmation -a writ may be allowed.

Mundy v. Board of Water Commissioners

75 N.J.L. 25 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 10, 1907

The board has had conferred upon it by the legislature the power of condemnation to meet just such a situation as this. … Under these circumstances the failure of the board to have recourse to proceedings in condemnation, in view of the ex *26 cessive purchase price demanded, is an unreasonable and improvident exercise by the board of the powers

Kline v. Board of Excise Commissioners

87 N.J.L. 38 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 22, 1915

This was the act relied on by this court in Voight v. Excise Board, 59 N. J. L. 358, as supporting a proceeding that would have been invalid under the Werts act in its original form. … It is recognized as in force by our decision in Henkel v. Hoy, 74 Id. 56, 57, submitted and decided after the supplement of 1906.

State v. Essex Public Road Board

47 N.J.L. 101 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1885

In Carter v. … Traphagen v. West Hoboken, 10 Vroom 232 ; State v. Elizabeth, 12 Vroom 152 ; Kirkpatrick v. Commissioners, 13 Vroom 510 ; Culver v. Jersey City, 16 Vroom 256 .

McManus v. Board of Police Commissioners

73 N.J.L. 307 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 26, 1906

a legal meeting of the board. … The board is constituted of four members. Pamph. L. 1885, p. 326.

Bowlby v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

83 N.J.L. 346 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 23, 1912

Sweeney v. Stevens, 17 Vroom 344 . … Hendrickson v. Fries, 16 Vroom 555 ; Christie v. Bayonne, 19 Id. 407 . A construction which leads to declaring sections of ah act unconstitutional ought not to be adopted if it can be avoided.

Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Wilson

16 N.J.L. 110 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 15, 1837

On the 14th May 1834, he stated and settled an account with the board, showing a balance of public money in his hands, to the amount *116 of one hundred and seventy-seven dollars, eighty-four cents; in which however a mistake … On the 13th May 1835, Wilson again accounted with the board, respecting all the money in his hands, except the school money above mentioned, and was found largely in arrear.

Randolph v. City of Brigantine Planning Board

405 N.J. Super. 215 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 6, 2009

Shapiro v. … See Kruvant v.

Pettit v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

87 F. 768 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 10, 1898

Schireson v. State Board of Medical Examiners

130 N.J.L. 570 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 24, 1943

Law, § 533; Com. v. Horton, 26 Mass. 206, 207 ; Com. v. Tilton, 49 Id. 232 ; State v. Henson, 66 N. J. L. 601, 608; compare In re Smith, 365 Ill. 11 ), while a plea of nolo contendere creates no such estoppel (Cf. … United States v. Norris, 281 U. S. 619 ; 74 L. Ed. 1076 ) but is merely an implied admission of guilt for the purposes of the instant criminal prosecution. Hudson v. United States, 272 U. S. 451 ; 71 L.

Meeting House Plaza Associates v. Planning Board

122 N.J. 406 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 16, 1990

Maxfield v. Board of Education

106 N.J. 538 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 4, 1987

It tolerates the State Board of Education’s refusal to obey the Appellate Division’s mandate in this case, accepting instead the State Board’s contention that our decision in Rutherford Education Association v. … Rutherford Board of Education, 99 N.J. 8 (1985), constituted an intervening change in the law. That contention simply does not withstand close scrutiny. In Spiewak v.

DeFlesco v. Mercer County Board of Elections

43 N.J. Super. 492 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 1957

State v. McCall, 14 N.J. 538, 545 (1954); Abbotts Dairies v. Armstrong, 14 N.J. 319, 325 (1954); Julius Roehrs Co. v. Division of Tax Appeals, 16 N.J. 493, 497 (1954); Jamouneau v. Harner, 16 N.J. 500, 513 (1954). … See recent opinion of public interest rendered by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Roberts v. Board of Elections, 129 A. 2 d 330 (1957).

Wolcott v. Overbrook Regional Board of Education

122 N.J. 128 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 1, 1990

U-Haul Co. v. Board of Adjustment

118 N.J. 212 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 31, 1989

Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Board of Review

397 N.J. Super. 309 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 31, 2007

PNI again appealed to the Board. On May 31, 2006, the Board issued its final decision affirming the Appeal Tribunal’s determination. … Campbell v. Dep’t of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 , 189 A.2d 712 (1963); State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark v.

McCallum v. County Board of Assessors

58 N.J.L. 544 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1896

A comparison between what a board of assessors may lawfully do to increase the value of the prop *545 erty contained in any assessors’ duplicate and what was done by the defendants in this record, will disclose the nature … Trask v. Carragan, 8 Vroom 264 ; Weehawken v. Roe, 7 Id. 86; West Hoboken v. Anderson, 9 Id. 173, 175; Clark Thread Co. v. Kearny Township, 26 Id. 50. The motion to quash the allocatur rests upon no apparent foundation.

Kosmin v. New Jersey State Parole Board

363 N.J. Super. 28 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 18, 2003

See, e.g., Petrusky v. Maxfli Dunlop Sports, 342 N.J.Super. 77, 81 , 775 A.2d 723, 725-26 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 388 , 788 A.2d 772 (2001); Weir v. … In reaching such determination, the board panel or board shall state on the record the reasons therefor. [Footnotes deleted.] See also Trantino v. N.J.