Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersNJ

10,000+ results

3.17s

  • Manalapan-Englishtown Education Ass'n v. Board of Education

    187 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 1981

    which did not exist at the time of [McCabe v. … Van Realty, Inc. v. Passaic, 117 N.J.Super. 425, 429 (App.Div.1971).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Trump Castle Hotel & Casino v. Board of Review

    126 N.J. 306 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 2, 1991

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • City of Atlantic City v. Board of Commissioners

    138 N.J. Super. 595 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1976

    On December 4, 1969 the board of commissioners enacted Ordinance No. 38 of 1969, providing that the salaries of the mayor and board of commissioners should be $21,000 and $18,500, respectively. … Giles v. Gassert, 23 N. J. 22, 33-34 (1956).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education

    381 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 2005

    See Frugis v. … See Catalane v.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Newark Fire Insurance v. State Board of Tax Appeals

    118 N.J.L. 525 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 31, 1937

    Newark v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 118 N. J. L. 131; 191 Atl. Rep. 843 . We are, of course, under section 11 of our Certiorari act (1 Comp. … The judgment of the state board of tax appeals is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington v. White

    92 N.J.L. 251 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 11, 1918

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • S. W. & D. W. v. Board of Education

    91 N.J. 234 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 8, 1982

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Frome v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Warren

    33 N.J. Eq. 464 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1881

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Dunellen Board of Education v. Dunellen Education Ass'n

    62 N.J. 188 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 14, 1972

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Van Der Weide v. Board of Public Works

    4 N.J. Misc. 521 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 28, 1926

    Mead v. Passaic, 2 N. J. Mis. R. 953. … On this phase of the case Mead v. Passaic, supra, is also in point. The ordinance will be set aside, with costs.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State ex rel. Chernin v. Board of Commissioners

    1 N.J. Misc. 402 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 14, 1923

    defendant in his brief admits that an application was made by petition signed by more than fifteen per cent, of the registered Voters of the town of Nutley at the general election, held in November, 1922, requesting the board … L. 1911, p. 479), relating to ordinances initiated by petition and adopted by the voters of the municipality or passed by the board of commissioners, which provides: “And any ordinance proposed by petition or which shall

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Suburban Investment Co. v. State Board of Assessors

    90 N.J.L. 727 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1917

    The only specific reason assigned by the prosecutor for setting aside the. assessment is that the state board of assessors made and levied the tax' upon the prosecutor under the provision of chapter 185 of the laws of 1896 … The return made by the prosecutor to the state board of assessors sets forth the amount of its capital stock issued and outstanding on January 1st, 1914, under section 3 of the Corporation Franchise act of April 18th, 1884

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Board of Health of West Hoboken v. Duckett

    92 N.J.L. 506 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 11, 1918

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • West Shore Railroad v. State Board of Assesors

    84 N.J.L. 768 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 3, 1913

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Newark Brass Works v. State Board of Assessors

    63 N.J.L. 500 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 12, 1899

    The ground on which it is insisted that this tax should be paid is that it failed to make an annual return to the state board of assessors as required by the statute. … for such information as will enable the state board to carry out the provisions of the act.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Brewing Improvement Co. v. State Board of Assessors

    65 N.J.L. 466 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 12, 1900

    This certiorari brings up the tax against the prosecutor, reported by the state board of assessor0 to the comptroller on June 5th, 1899, pursuant to the Corporation Tax act. Gen. Siat., p. 3335. … The statute does not designate any day as that on which the capital stock is to form the basis of the tax, nor does it authorize the board of assessors to designate such a day.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State ex rel. MacFarland v. Board of Education

    45 N.J.L. 100 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1883

    L. 1868, p. 499,) establishes a board of education for said city. … The bestowal of these powers shows that it was the purpose of the charter to substitute, in- the city, the board of education for the board of trustees elected in school districts under the general law.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Megie v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Morris

    84 N.J.L. 159 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 3, 1913

    The board of chosen freeholders of the county of Morris, being called upon to build a bridge over part of Lake Hopatcong, refused to comply, and thereupon the relators caused to be issued an alternative writ of mandamus. … , then the board may, by resolution, to be adopted in like manner, order and provide for and proceed with the erection of such bridge.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Bederski v. Policemen's & Firemen's Pension Board of Newark

    104 N.J.L. 163 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 17, 1927

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Spring Brook Gardens, Inc. v. Board of Adjustment

    137 N.J.L. 398 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1948

    Based on the refusal of the Board of Adjustment to find unnecessary hardship, the Township Committee refused to grant the variance. … Brandon v. Montclair, 124 N. J. L. 135. We have no difficulty in finding that the action of the Board of Adjustment in not making a finding of unnecessary hardship was arbitrary and without any proof to sustain it.

    Cited 0 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.