Legal Opinion

City of Newark v. Lippmen

Newark Municipal Court

Decided March 7, 1935PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Villani, P. C. J.

Complainant charged defendant with a violation of section (6) subsection (0) of the zoning ordinance of the city o’f Newark. The violation alleged was that defendant used premises No. 344 Grove street, Newark, as a stone yard when such use was not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The facts are admitted to wit: Defendant has a display of finished grave stones set up on the vacant lot at this number with a sign that his place of business is at No. 158 Broome street, Newark, New Jersey. No selling or work is done at the Grove street address, it being merely an open air show…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ward v. HuffSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1920
  2. Haviland v. EganSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
  3. Owens v. City of CamdenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1928
  4. Federal Shipbuilding, C., Co. v. BayonneNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928
  5. Kosich v. Township CommitteeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1934

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Maplewood v. TannenhausNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
  2. Fresco v. PolicastroNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1982
  3. Porter v. TureenDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API