Legal Opinion
Matter of Petition of Hackensack Water Co.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided April 9, 1984PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
196 N.J. Super. 162 (1984)
481 A.2d 1160
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF HACKENSACK WATER COMPANY FOR THE GRANT OF MUNICIPAL CONSENT THROUGH THE VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 48:19-17.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued March 19, 1984.
Decided April 9, 1984.
Before Judges BISCHOFF, PETRELLA and BRODY.
Roger W. Breslin, Jr. argued the cause for appellant, Village of Ridgewood (Goodman, Stoldt, Breslin & Horan, attorneys).
Cindy K. Miller, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent, Board of Public Utilities (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited23 opinions
- United Building & Constr. Trades Council of Camden Cty. v. Mayor and Council of CamdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Borough of Roselle v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
- Cunningham v. Department of Civil ServiceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1975
- Washington Market Enterprises, Inc. v. City of TrentonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1975
- Overlook Terrace Management Corp. v. Rent Control Board of West New YorkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1976
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Borough of Haledon v. Borough of North HaledonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2003
- Palmentieri v. Atlantic CityNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988