Case law

Leander Williams v. New Jersey State Parole Board

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 3, 2023

Jones v. Morey’s Pier, Inc., 230 N.J. 142, 164 (2017) (quoting St. Peter’s Univ. Hosp. v. Lacy, 185 N.J. 1, 14-15 (2005)); see also State v. … .”); People v.

Matlack v. Burlington County Board of Chosen Freeholders

99 N.J. 191 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 12, 1984

Meyer v. Borough of Tinton Falls Planning Board

91 N.J. 281 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 21, 1982

In re Brown

217 N.J. 614 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 2014

ORDER The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 13-341, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule 1:20—4(f) (default by respondent), that *615 SALEEMAH M. … BROWN, A/K/A SALEEMAH MALIKAH KHALEEFAH BROWN, of PATERSON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2008, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three-months for violating RPC 1.4(b) (failure to

Boyer v. Board of Review Unemployment Compensation Commission

137 N.J.L. 91 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 13, 1948

Rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue was allowed in this case to review so much of the decision of the Board of Review of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of New Jersey as holds that prosecutor … An appeal from the determination of the appeal tribunal was taken by claimant to the Board of Review, which, after hearing, affirmed the determination of the appeal tribunal on the ground of unavailability for work as required

Diamond Wall Cement Co. v. Board of Education

98 N.J. Eq. 410 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 5, 1925

State ex rel. Elmendorf v. Board of Finance

41 N.J.L. 135 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1879

Little, v. … It does not therefore differ in substance from the case of Cleveland v.

Intrastate Oil Co. v. Board of Commrs., Orange

111 N.J.L. 354 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 27, 1933

Matlack v. Lloyd, 82 N. J. L. 739; Camden v. Public Service Railway Co., 84 Id. 309. The appeal must be dismissed.

Bank of Bergen County v. Board of Education

84 N.J.L. 694 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1913

The suit was to recover a balance of moneys loaned, and the balance claimed arose in this way: The defendant board of education intending to buy land and erect thereon a new school house, wont through the legal formalities … The original proceedings of the board and the original authority given to it by the voters were based on the proposed purchase of the Kip site.

Central Railroad v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

98 N.J.L. 258 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 1922

The judgment under review’ herein will he affirmed, for the reasons given in the per curiam in Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. … State Board of Taxes and Assessment et al., No. 45 of the present term of this court (post p. 383). ■ For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Sways®, Parker, Black, Katzenbach, White, Williams, 1 Gardner, Ackerson

Willets Manufacturing Co. v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

60 N.J.L. 29 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1897

Trustees v. Fisher, 3 Harr. 256 . If a plea does not by fair intendment confess the doing of the acts complained of, it is bad as a justification. Gould Pl. 340.

State ex rel. Bott v. Board of Registry

61 N.J.L. 160 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1897

This is an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus to be directed to the board of registry and election, commanding said board to reconvene and count the ballots cast at said election for the proposed constitutional

Borough of Chatham v. Board of Conservation & Development

107 N.J.L. 101 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1930

In this connection it is urged that the board, in reaching its conclusion, used and considered a report of a Mr. Critchlow, the head of the division of waters, an expert employed by the board. … That the functions of the board are gwasi-judicial was definitely settled by this court in Oakland v. Bayonne, 98 N. J. L. 806. Consequently the usual and recognized rules governing such bodies must be applied.

Edison United Phonograph Co. v. State Board of Assessors

57 N.J.L. 520 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1895

The counsel for the prosecutor regards the matter as decided by the opinion of this court in Phonograph Co. v. Board of Assessors, 25 Vroom 430 . But this view is erroneous.

Monmouth County Board of Social Services v. A.B.

194 N.J. Super. 4 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1984

Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598 , 92 S.Ct. 1932 , 32 L.Ed.2d 352 (1972). … The Director relied on that regulation in affirming the action taken by the Board.

Hudson County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Clark

102 N.J. 340 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 15, 1985

Friends Retirement Concepts v. Board of Education

356 N.J. Super. 203 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2002

Gunthner v. Planning Board of the Borough of Bay Head, 335 N.J.Super. 452, 460 , 762 A.2d 710 (Law Div.2000). … Szoke v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Monmouth Beach, 260 N.J.Super. 341 , 616 A.2d 942 (App.Div. 1992) (quoting Darrell v.

Borough of Palmyra, Board of Education v. F.C.

2 F. Supp. 2d 637 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 22, 1998

In W.B. v. … District of Columbia, 19 IDELR 336 (D.D.C.1992), and seeing that disabled students receive a free appropriate education, Brown v. Wilson County School Bd., 17 EHLR 676 (M.D.Tenn.1991).

Stanziale v. Monmouth County Board of Health

350 N.J. Super. 414 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 26, 2002

As we said in Mizerak v. … See Mizerak v. County of Middlesex, supra, 230 N.J.Super. at 579 , 554 A.2d 476 . The Act, therefore, empowers county boards of chosen freeholders to establish a vehicle to provide such health services.

Berkeley Township Zoning Board of Adjustment v. Rowe

320 N.J. Super. 164 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 1999

In Fryer v. … See also Kuberski v. Haussermann, 113 N.J.L. 162 , 172 A. 738 (Sup.Ct.1934); Cf., Andrews v.