Case law

BROWN v. ASTRAZENECA LP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 26, 2023

King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650, 659-61 (6th Cir. 2012). … Brown 2:19-cv-04586 752 Johnny Brown 2:19-cv-04592 753 Todd Brown 2:19-cv-04595 754 Yvonne Abrams

Township of Morris v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

49 N.J. 194 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 24, 1967

J. 241 (1957); Woodside Homes, Inc. v. Town of Morristown, 26 N. … Compare, City of Texarkana v. Wiggins, 151 Tex. 100 , 246 S. W. 2d 622 (Sup. Ct. 1952). We do not regard In re Glen Rock, supra, or Woodside Homes, Inc. v.

Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Mayor of Jersey City

81 N.J.L. 290 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 19, 1911

Essex Road Board, 8 Id. 335, 338; State, Graham, prosecutor, v. Paterson, Id. 380, 385; Long Branch Commission v. Dobbins, 32 Id. 659), as well as implied in section 13 of the Certiorari act of 1903. Pamph. L., p. 347. … Elizabeth v. Meeker, 16 Vroom 157 , 160. If the assessment appears to be just and fair, but is set aside only for irregularity in procedure, the court may adopt it as its own. Brown v.

Di Paolo v. Passaic County Board of Chosen Freeholders

162 N.J. 572 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 1, 2000

St. Mary's of Mt. Virgin's Church v. Board of Adjustment

14 N.J. Misc. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 1936

On appeal the board of adjustment found that the construction would be in violation of sections III and VI of the zoning ordinance but nevertheless resolved as follows: “Now therefore this Board finds and determines that … A church. * * * No exception shall be made to the provision of this section by the Board of Adjustment.” There are formal returns to the writ by the secretary of the board of adjustment and by the building inspector.

Hemsey v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen's Retirement System

196 N.J. 85 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 6, 2008

951 A.2d 1038 (2008) 196 N.J. 85 HEMSEY v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE & FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM. No. C-347 September Term 2007, 61,372. Supreme Court of New Jersey. June 6, 2008. Petition for certification. Granted.

In Re Friedland

95 N.J. 170 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 1984

He further claimed that respondent had not received proper notice of the Committee hearing, although he admitted that Raymond Brown, attorney of record, had received appropriate notice. … Brown advised to the contrary. The Committee thereafter concluded that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (3), (4), (5) and (6).

West Shore Railroad v. State Board of Taxes & Assessment

92 N.J.L. 332 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 17, 1918

State Board v. Central R. R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 146. … The contention thus made is not without some color of support, in view of the adjudication of this court in Gillen v. Essex County Board of Taxation, 91 N. J. L. 76; Johnson v. City of Passaic, ID., and Borden v.

Evesham Township Zoning Board of Adjustment v. Evesham Township Council

86 N.J. 295 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 9, 1981

Yardville Supply Co. v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor

114 N.J. 371 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 23, 1989

The Board of Review upheld this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision in Yardville v. Board of Review, 222 N.J.Super. 201 (1988). … II The Attorney General, representing the Board of Review, concedes that under Self v.

LePrince v. Board of Trustees, Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund

267 N.J. Super. 270 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 19, 1993

The Board considered and evaluated the standards and factors announced in Uricoli v. Police & Fire. Retirem. Sys., 91 N.J. 62 , 449 A.2d 1267 (1982). … State v.

Meyer v. BOARD, TEACHERS'PEN. & ANNUITY FUND

49 N.J. Super. 255 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1958

MEYER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TEACHERS' PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF, v. SAMUEL S. SAGOTSKY, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER H. … Plaintiff can find no case in point by way of authority for her proposition with the possible exception of Shaw v. Board of Administration, 109 Cal. App. 2 d 770, 241 P. 2 d 635 ( Ct. App. 1952).

Township of Piscataway v. State Board of Tax Appeals

131 N.J.L. 158 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 27, 1944

Village of Ridgefield Park v. Bergen County Board of Taxation

31 N.J. 420 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 1960

It is true that practical equality (somewhat short of the ideal; *429 see City of Passaic v. Passaic County Board of Taxation, 18 N. … As we have this day decided, City of Passaic v. Passaic County Board of Taxation, 31 N.

State ex rel. Hopper v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

52 N.J.L. 313 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1890

Gallager v. Board, &c., 16 *317 Vroom 465 . ISTor will a public body be compelled to do an act which would violate a penal statute, such as the act making criminal a vote to exceed appropriations. Mabon v. … Brown v. Rahway, 22 Vroom 279 . If this-excuse be permitted to be now interposed by way of return, it would not be true, in point of fact, at the time when its trutlr or sufficiency could be brought in question.

Walker v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

83 N.J.L. 695 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 18, 1912

That such an employment judged by the nature of its duties, as shown by a stipulation, is not an office is clear from our decisions which are collected in the opinion recently filed in the case of Fredericks v. … The duties appertaining to the clerkship in question are performed by an agent employed by the board and not by virtue of any office recognized by this act.

Gill v. PLANNING BOARD OF TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK

957 N.J. 461 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 5, 2008

957 A.2d 1171 (2008) 957 N.J. 461 GILL v. PLANNING BOARD OF TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK. C-44 September Term 2008 62,575 Supreme Court of New Jersey. September 5, 2008. Petition for certification. Denied.

State v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

45 N.J.L. 173 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1883

On proceedings instituted in February, 1882, the Supreme Court in December, 1882, awarded a mandamus, directing the board of chosen freeholders of Hudson' county to insert this sum in the tax levy for 1883, but refused to … The case is similar to, but stronger for the defendants in error than that of Beals v. Supervisors of Amador County, 28 Cal. 449 .

City of Jersey City v. State Board of Tax Appeals

133 N.J.L. 202 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 29, 1945

State Board of Assessors v. Central Railroad Co., 48 N. J. L. 146; 4 Atl. Rep. 578 ; Cf. Bergen and, Dundee Railroad Co. v. State Board of Assessors, 74 N. J. L. 742; 67 Atl. … State Board of Assessors v. Central Railroad Co., supra; Cf. Jersey City v. Martin, 126 N. J. L. 353, 360, 361; 19 Atl. Rep. (2d) 40.

Acquackanonk Water Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners

97 N.J.L. 366 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1922

There follows the view of the board as to the law, and last my view. … That the board has no power to affect the rates of the East Jersey Water Company because the rates are all regulated by contract, and the board is without jurisdiction to disregard these contracts.