No Transcript of Record — Finkle v. Housing Authority of the City of Trenton

Bi Sa

Supreme Cart

*

5

’

¢ 3

*

ut the United States

’

¢

.

-

2

‘

e :

. 5 .

ac

'

Als -

.

9

-

o-

ao a,

e

4

*

s «

.

é

>»

i

-, Statement of the Case

Reasons for G ranting the Writ .....----5+-+: aa

-

IXDEX TO PETITION

ag >

Opiniens Below .. ae oN evegecccovecenss pcaccccces

Jurisdiction. ria eran es ae Seah eae ee Ree

Questions Presented ........-206 eee cee Merce ee

1. The value of the, propeyty taken should be deter:

, yhined as of a date as early as 1954, or even srior

* * © ’ . .

thereto, and certainly as early as August 18, 1955,

when the Planning Board held its public meeting,

or by September 1,.1959, when the City of Trenton,

by its Resolution. No. ARO71, designated the so-

called Coalport Area as a blighted area, and the

Court's rulings adverse thereto and the fixing of

the ‘valuation date as of September 29, 1958, the.

date of filing the Complaint, is a denial to defend-

ants of due process of lay and the equal protection

of the laws, and the taking of their property with- “

- out just compensation, in. violation of the Four- ,

teenth Amendment to the Constitution of the,

United States and the law of the’ land *...:...+:--

_—

‘The Court’s ruling permitting plaintiff to estab-

lish its asserted value of the property taken by one

. proceedure but denying that same procedure to de-

fendants, and then refusing to strike plaintiff’s

testimony is a denial to defendants of ‘the equal

protection of the laws in violation of the Four-

teenth -Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States ........--ccccccccccenesetotees 3

3. The defendants were denied due process of law,

the equal protection of the laws, and just ecompen-

sation for the property taken, in. violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the

United States, by the Court’s ruling denying de-

fendants’ right to show and. establish: .~

-

—~

a. An agreement between plaintiff and defend-

ants of the sum to be paid defendants for the

property taken, from which plaintiff unjusti-

fiably withdrew and instituted. the actions to

condemn ....-- + MEIN ORS SET ere

“eee ee

b. The amount «xp nded in maintenance of the’

buildings as an clement in establishing their

cood condition and resultant walue .....----

’

24

2

95

>

w

.

Chessman v. aa 4 US. 156 (195 7) Weert ere

&- «

ant . index Continued .

Page

: Lhe expe nse to defendants of moving and

” Genanine of the contents - —.e buildings,

which had contained a going business as we i

NI al noe og 1c Wn cs ee wae Oe ae 2

d. A fair-compensation for the loss of the busi- | -

ness, Which was destroyed by the taking. by

plaintiff PER DE SES KAS hse 60 Oh 40Os SANS aS eAD or

+. The trial Court erred in refusing to set aside the

verdict va the jury and grant a new trial, which

verdict clearly was not-only contrary to the weight

“of the evidence, but which has no direct evidence

to omtpem it... 5.4 ater e ease Ls dae Aa

5. The trial Court erred in charging the jury that

they could inake use of their view of the subject

_ premises’ on June 25, 1959 (when the Coalport

Area was devastated), in forming their judgment

of the testimony and in determining their verdict... * 26.

i. Vhe’Superior Court, Appellate Division, erred in

affirming the judgment of the Law Division, and

palpably based its decision and judgment on an

erroneous concept-of the evidence .............. 26

7. The cgse presents important questions respecting

standards for valuing property taken for public

use, and there may be an apparent conflict in one

- of this Court's decisions respecting the same, ... * 26

| TABLE OF CASES CITED —

Appeal of Lakewood Memorial: Gardens, Ine., 38b Pa. -

46, 112 A. 2d 155 et C't. Pa. 1955) a te cn chins Ol

Barnes v. Kinnicut, 33 N. J. L. J. 152 (Bergen Dist.

Seg Se ee Scare ee eee ess

Barry v. P. R.R. Co., 65 N. J. 407 Soed piek gen 43

Beam v. Kent, 3.N. NS RC EOE ee 8

Blenderhan vy. Price,’ | N. J. Eq. :2 Atl. 812 (Ch.

Bowen vy. Healev's Ine., 16 N. J. Mise, 113, 197 Atl.

ou Meese 45

Rrinkerhoff &¢. Co, vy Hill &e,, 981 1S. 673, 681, O83

SE hd a aos oo ard ok eh OE we OO 44.

Bndd v. Meriden Flee. Co. 69 Conn. 272; 37 Atl. 686

ee ns Ss wh ee koe 094.8 an

Carlson ¥. Curtisg, 234.0. S. 108, 106 ..............-- =

a)

Index Continued

|

Craig y. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 373, 374 (1940) rrr

Creswell v. Knights ot P ythias, 225 U.S. 246, 261...

Danforth v. UL S., 808 U.S. 27d eee ee eee ce eee eC

Dyer v. Srcdiebizie, 63 Me, 173 (Sup. Jud. Ct. 1874) .

Fisch v. Manger, 24 N. J. “_ (19ST) cee eee eee es

Garland v. Furst Store, 93.N. J. Lb. ble (de. & A. 1919)

Gieorgia Ry. & Elec, Co. v. Decatur, ae Y. S. 165, 170,

at RR errr

rt a LL. V. RL R. Co., 82 N. J. L. 490, af.

Ee Tyeg were reas

cane v. Rutledge, 70) Md. bite 17 Atl. 76 (Ct. ~

ISSO) ccc cee cee ce Pace ete cece we meseseesonrs

(iriftin v. ‘People’ of the State “ot Illinois, 351 UL S. ‘12,

4) Serer e eer UE ey toe eRe er eae ee.

* (ivosso v. Board of Adjustment of Milburn Wap, 137

NJ. LL: 630 (Sup. “9 EL: RRR AE a A Se er

Hager v. Weber, ¢ ee Ff eee ee eee re oe

Hateh v. Brown, 63 Me. H10 (Sup. Jud. Ct. IS74) .

‘THilLy. Carter, 16. NL. 1. 87 GSup. Ct. 1887)

Housing Authority of the € ity of Trenton v., Finkle,

et al., 33 N. J. 302 Pee ee ee eee Ee i

IInghes y. Atlantic Citv & S. RL R. Co., 85 NOL.

AD WB A. VOTE) s . nin eens ce esscebeass bat ses

Interstate Amusemie Hc (‘o. Y, OVbert, 239 U. S. ‘560

AGT

5 a ae Me ee eS a ee Oe BS SSeS ee ee ee ee

Jenness v. Simpson, gy Vt: 127; “o Atl, S86 (Sup.

Ae | | COE ee CTR U PRCT Ae Sere aa teers

Juliano ¥. Abeles, et al... 14 N. a. . 510, 177 A. 666

Man, CF. PET). occ ce cc cws cease ancesecs er cases

Katzenhach v. Holt, 43 N. J. Bq. 586 (Ch. 1887)

Kentner v, Kline, 41 N. J. Ea. 422 (Ch. 1886) &......

ae oni Ine. v. iexcsaate 347 ms S. 110, 121

ee ee eae ee ee ee ee ee

4 (C+, App. 1807) 5, ae Oey par rr

Lenzner v. City of Trenton: 22 ¥. J. Super. 415 (Law

Div. 1959): 299 N, J. Super. 514: 16 N. J. 465-

rey v. Pittsburgh & C. Ry. Co. 147 Pa. St

- 99 Atl, 399 (Sun. Ct. TS9B) 2... eee ee eee

Moirot vy. Proiskel, et al., 74 Atl. 994 (Sun. Ct. 1909)

VCR. R. v. Zachary, 232 UT. S. 248, M58, 250.2...

V.J-Flax Co. v. Mills. 296 N. 7.1, 60 (Sun. Ct. 18h6).

}, J _Hichwav —— vy. Rudd, 36 N. J. Super. at

ee a ee ee ee ee eR EN ea Tidy

s+’ & & a8

. ok eS eee ee © Oe 6. 8 BY 2

3

47

_ 4

She)

39

45

30

42

39

. 38°

)

»”

42

44

be ’ Index Continued

‘Ore v. Clark, 62 Vt. 136.19 Ath 9: a) (Sup. Ct. SESH) 2. 2M

OL ‘anagouliss Vv. Philip Morris Co., N. ‘H. , OS Atl. on

Me Pe A es I SE veka tcacesteses coset escrs * ie

PK. R. v. Root, 53 N. J. 1. 253 wo: 5. Vee ue res tear ae

Prout v. Prout, 82 'N. J. Baw. 587 (6. & AL 1911) 203728

Rosetti ve P. S, Coor, Trans., 53 N. J. ee 203, (A.

ee) MEE ee TT CE CE PST ee te GEE See aa

Southern Pacifie R. R. v. Se huyler 997 Th S. GUL, ae

Statesv. Hudson Service Center, Ine., tH N. J. Super

125. (Ap. Div. 11957) Foun ae Pe ee deine gc 4)

“State vi Jones, 27 a J. Zaz (1958) A a ee: m8:

Stein va Sehinitz, IST NLL. 725 CL & A, Ry, ao

Si ansdn v. Wie ma ag X. J. Super 576 (App. Div.

poctn ATE OE Pe PEC TT ne Lene t TE 42

— Uniter States vo Cansby, 898 U.S: 256 (1946) 0000 .. 27, FI

Vhited States v. Cress, 2943 US. 216 (1947). ‘.

PLS. v. Genl, Motors Corn. 3 of U.S. 273 (1944)... DS, 40, 4°

United States v. Miller, 317 Vs S. 269 (1942) Ks

Vermont Farimn-Mach. Co, ¥. ‘Bate helder, GS Vt. 450;

Atl: 378 (Sup. Ct. 1896)

STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHOR] TIES CITED

Kininent Nomaijn Act, NISA - zu: : ke Meaty pe ee “14

Broom’s Legal Maxims [22.2005 0:2... SA gd OR are 14

MeCehee Dune Process of Law, pp. 26-7:..........5. 15

: Nichols, Eminent Domain, see. 8.4017) 3rd ed. M50). 0 Te

oJ. Const. 1947, Art. 6, See. TT par. 4 00.0... .0.... It

A West's Ni. Digest, “Sew Trial”, pp. 262-45 ote, ee

Riles POMEL GE rcciiraa fala a sheave oe tata a ae eR Vv

4:92 of Ak he a, eee ees ae Ps.

| i eee EO ERASE Ae een eh eae: mM

Wigmore, “ Evidence’’, i. od.) See, 562 p. 644; See.

tee ONES CES ae ad tok ole once ics Wk ae Ein eto os

INDEX TO APPENDIX

Housing Authority of the City of T renton v. Finkle, et

al., Opinion pf Superior Court, Appellate Division. 1s

Mandate ee ee cha ec uek oh chweta ws teers Sa

Notice of Petition for Certifieation 2. ............ <a

Tndement of Supreme Court of New Jersey Sema ok ~. 10a

Order KE ixtending Time to File Petition for Writ of

(* ertiorari .euehness ore a wae ae nee n eet enecewecetes Ha

ete

°

| ase. :

Supreme Court of the Auited States

Ocroser TERM, 1960

No.

Macrice A. Finkie, Executor of the last: will and!

testament of Isaac Finke, deceased, MAURICE A.

bhixKLE and Karnarys- If, PrN ke, his wife, Na-

-opHanw N. FIxkir and Bess P. Frxk ie, his wife,

Lesrer J. Pinker and*Besste H. Finke, his wife,

Bessize E. Lueix, Matrick R. Brock, CARoLyn

Lavine and Tatserr Lavine, her husband, 8. Les-

; Vs

a. ~ 7 ce

_ HousinG AUTHORITY OF “rHE Ciry or TRENTON, a body

~ «érporate and politic of the State of New Jersey,

fie a os Respondent.

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

To the Honorable the Chief: Justice and the Associate

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

the last will and testament of Isaac Finkle, deceased.

Maurice A. Finkle and Katharyn H. Finkle, his wife.

Nathan N. Finkle and Bess P. Finkle, his wife. Lester

TER BLOCK and Rut Brock, his wife, Petitioners,

Your petitioners, Maurice A. Finkle, Executor of.

) 2

dd. Willi sued Bessie H. Finkle, his wife, Bessie E.

Lubin, Maurice R. Block, Carolyn Lavine and Talbert

Lavine, her husband, S. Lester Block and Ruth Block.

his wife, respectfully pray the-issuance of a writ of

certiorari to the Supreme Court of New Jersey to

retiew the judgment and decision of that Court. ren- ~

dered on October 3, 1960, which judgment and decision

denied to petitioners their.petition to that Court for

certification to the-Superior Court of New Jersey. Ap-

pellate Division, to review the judgment of said Sian.

rior Court, Appellate Division, of July 5, 1960. Said .

judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed the judg-

ment of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Divi-

sion, rendered on July 2, 1959, in eminent domain pro-

ceedings to condemn two ¢ ontiguous properties of peti-.

tioners for the asserted purpose of ‘clearing an alleged

blight area, referred to.as the Coalpurt Area, in accord-

ance with afi Ordinance and other action of the City of

Trenton, New Jersey, and of the Housing Authority of

the City of Trenton, a body corporate and politic of the’

State of New Jersey, authorized to proceed in accord-

ance therewith.

OPINIONS BELOW

No formal opinion was filed in the Superior Court.

Law Division, but the Court’s views and conclusions —

are expressed in the record of the- argument of the

motion for a new trial. (See Appendix for Appellants

ini the Superior Court, Appellate Division, it pages

220a to 229a, filed herewith. )

- The opinion of the Appellate Division is printed in

full in the Appendix to this petition at page la. Tt is

not officially reported. The judgment is. printed at

* page 8a.

-3

No opinion was rendered by. the Supreme Court; but

the judgment and decision denying the petition for

certification is reported in 33: NU. Reports, at page 332.

It is also printed in fall in the Appendix to this peti-

tion at page 10a.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Supreme Court of New Jersey

denying the petition for certification to review the

judgment of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appel-

late Jurisdiction, which judgnient of the Appellate:

Division affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court,

Law Division, is dated October 3, 1960. i

By Order of Deceniber, 30, 1960, the time within

which petitioners herein may apply to this Court for a

writ of certiorari to review the judginent of the Su-

preme Court of New Jersey was extended by Honorable

William J. Brennan, Jr., Associate Justice of the Su- —

preme Court of the United States, to and including

February 28,.1961. Said Order is printed in the Ap-

pendix to this petition at page 11a. Each of the respec-

tive counsel for the respondent was promptly informed

personally of the aJlowance of said Order, and a true

and complete copy thereof was .duly served on each

pursiant:to Rule 34(4), and Rule 33(1), on January

5, 1961. in the manner specified hy Rule 4:51 and Rule.

4:52 of Civil Practice in the Superior Court of New

Jersey... 7 eS J ;

Jurisdiction to review this ease upon writ of cer- .

tiorari is conferred upon‘this Court by 28 United

States Code, See. 1257 (3).