Case law

Township of Greenwich v. Gloucester County Board of Taxation

46 N.J. 55 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 1, 1965

Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. the Zoning Board of Adjustment

448 N.J. Super. 583 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 14, 2017

In its resolution, the Board relied upon Rumson Estates, Inc. v. … v.

Irval Realty Inc. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

61 N.J. 366 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 25, 1972

Ferry v. Williams, 41 N. J. L. 332 (Sup. Ct. 1879); Taxpayers Association v. City of Cape May, 2 N. J. Super. 27 (App. Div. 1949); Moore v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Mercer County, 76 N. J. Super. 396 (App. … See Josefowicz v. Porter, 32 N. J. Super. 585, 591 (App. Div. 1954).

Pennsylvania Railroad v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

49 N.J. 174 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 24, 1967

See also Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit, supra, 362 U. S., at pp. 443-445, 80 S. Ct., at p. 913 , 4 L. Ed. 2d, at pp. 856-857; Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners, 374 U. S. 424, 428 , 83 S. … R. § 91.231 ; see Brown v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 108 F. Supp. 164 (N. D. Iowa 1952).

Board of Educ. v. Zon. Bd. of Adj.

409 N.J. Super. 515 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 2, 2009

State v. Brown, 22 N.J. 405, 415 , 126 A. 2d 161 (1956). … New Jersey Transit Corp. v.

State ex rel. Borshesky v. Board of Works

8 N.J. Misc. 386 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 10, 1930

This was refused and on appeal to the board of adjustment the application was again denied. … Durkin Lumber Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 7 N. J. Adv. R. 1127.

Township of Marlboro v. Planning Board of Holmdel

279 N.J. Super. 638 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1995

In Nunziato v. … Ass’n. v. Bernards Tp., 108 N.J. 223, 233 , 528 A.2d 555 (1987); Longridge Builders, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Princeton Tp., 52 N.J. 348, 350-351, 245 A.2d 336 (1968); West Park Ave., Inc. v.

Burton v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DISPERSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.

199 N.J. 129 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 2, 2009

970 A.2d 1047 (2009) 199 N.J. 129 BURTON v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DISPERSION TECHNOLOGY, INC. C-781 September Term 2008, 63,809 Supreme Court of New Jersey. April 2, 2009. Petition for certification. Denied.

Financial Services, L.L.C. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

326 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 1999

In Charlie Brown of Chatham, Inc. v. … See Kramer v. Board of Adjustment of Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268, 296-97, 212 A.2d 153 (1965).

DeGRAFFENREID v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BOARD OF REVIEW

196 N.J. 595 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 22, 2008

960 A.2d 394 (2008) 196 N.J. 595 DeGRAFFENREID v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BOARD OF REVIEW. Supreme Court of New Jersey. October 22, 2008. Petition for certification. Denied.

Sansone Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment

211 N.J. Super. 304 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 18, 1986

Board of Adj., Sea Girt, 45 N.J. 268, 282 (1965). While its function is termed “ij'M&sí-judieial,” a board of adjustment “partakes of the judicial” nonetheless, Handlon v. … Planning Bd. v. Tp.

BROWN v. FALVEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 2024

(citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347-50 (1981) and Thomaston v. Meyer, 519 F. App’x 118, 119 (3d Cir. 2013)).) … Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321-22 (1986) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 A.

CHRUSTOWSKI v. BROWN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2024

MELANIE HAMLIN BROWN, et al., Defendants. … Guidance Ctr., Case No. 23-cv-3112-RMB-SAK; Chrustowski v. Cumberland Cnty. Guidance Ctr., Case No. 23-cv-3113-RMB-SAK; Chrustowski v. NAACP, Case No. 23- cv-3692-RMB-SAK; and Chrustowski v.

Borough of Brooklawn v. Brooklawn Housing Corp.

129 N.J.L. 77 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 18, 1942

Boyd v. Brown, 115 N. J. L. 611. There would seem to be no question that the Shipping Board, as an agency of the United States, was not liable for payment of taxes to the Borough. … The case of Boyd, v. Brown, supra, presents a situation similar to the instant case.

Yellow Pine Co. v. State Board of Assessors

72 N.J.L. 182 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 19, 1905

L., p. 31. *183 The matter was presented to the Supreme Court by a return of the state board of assessors to a certiorari sued out by the plaintiff in error. … Moran v. Jersey City, 29 Vroom 653 ; Vreeland v. Bayonne, 31 Id. 168; Morris v. Bayonne, 33 Id. 385; Morris & Cumming Dredging Co. v. Jersey City , 35 Id. 587.

State ex rel. Lewis v. Board of Public Works

51 N.J.L. 240 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1889

United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 118 ; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 393 ; Sheboygan Co. v. Parker, 3 Id. 93; United States v. Germaine, 99 U. … This relator was not employed by any official act of the board. He was “put to work” by the chairman of the board. The only official evidence of his employment is the appearance of his name on the pay rolls.

Fuller v. Board of Education

78 N.J.L. 107 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 22, 1909

The prosecutor now challenges the power of the board of education to condemn this land. … This not only appears from the separation of the two powers in the statute itself, but it was so held in the case of Griffith v.

Board of Health v. Cattell

73 N.J.L. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1906

Cattell for violating section 36 of the rules of the board of health of the city of Wood-bury. The proceeding was begun by a complaint made by the secretary of the board of health, that he had mailed a notice to Mrs. … The question respecting the character of the proceeding seems to be put at rest in this court by the case of White v. Neptune City, 27 Vroom 222 .

Northgate Condominium Ass'n v. Borough of Hillsdale Planning Board

214 N.J. 120 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 13, 2013

State League of Municipalities v. … “Because a [board’s] actions are presumed valid, the party ‘attacking such action [has] the burden of proving otherwise.’ ” Cell S. of N.J., Inc. v.

State v. Board of Excise

59 N.J.L. 97 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1896

The act of 1891 provides “that hereafter, in all cities of the second class in this state (whether such licenses are now granted by a board of excise, or by commissioners of excise or by the governing board of such city or … In Decker v. Board of Excise, 28 Vroom 603, Mr. Justice Reed expressed the same view, although that question was not necessarily involved in the case.