Legal Opinion

State v. Friedman

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided March 7, 1997PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendants Marvin J. Friedman and his wife Marsha Friedman appeal from their convictions after a trial de novo in the Law Division of violations of Washington Township’s anti-noise ordinance on eight separate occasions when their dog’s barking awakened their neighbor between the hours of 6:12 and 6:44 a.m. The Law Division Judge imposed the same $40 fine for each violation, totaling $320, as had the Municipal Court.

On appeal, the Friedmans make the following arguments:

I. As it was applied to these defendants, Washington Township’s Anti-Noise Ordinance is unconstitutionally subjective and…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Coates v. City of CincinnatiSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Palmer v. City of EuclidSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. State v. CameronSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  5. State v. SmithSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1966

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. Clarksburg InnNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
  2. Town of Baldwin v. CarterSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2002
  3. State v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API