Legal Opinion

R. H. MacY & Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided October 21, 1963PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Cubiam:.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed by Judge Conford in his opinion for the Appellate Division. See 77 N. J. Super. 155 (1962). That opinion declined to pass on the issue of discrimination because it had not been raised before tbe Division of Tax Appeals; we note that the issue was similarly not included in the points set forth in the brief filed by the appellant in this court. Although we have subscribed to the Appellate Division’s treatment of the final issue captioned “Administrative Rule-Making by Adjudication” (77 N. J. Super., at p. 179), we take this occasion…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Butler Oak Tavern v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage ControlSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
  2. RH MacY & Co. Inc. v. DIRECTOR, DIV. OF TAX.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Doe v. PoritzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
  2. Metromedia, Inc. v. Director, Division of TaxationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  3. Fedders Financial Corp. v. Director, Division of TaxationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  4. Crema v. New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
  5. Keyes Martin & Co. v. Director, Div. of PurchaseSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985

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

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

Powered by the Exa API