Legal Opinion

Iannella v. Piscataway Township

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided November 6, 1946No. Docket 147/447PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The complainants seek to subject the defendant to temporary restraint of the nature expressed in the prayer of their bill. The defendant in resisting the application challenges the sufficiency of the bill.

Succinctly stated, the bill alleges that Edward Geschwind and Eugene Hoffman acquired a parcel of land in the Township of Piscataway in the County of Middlesex, and in 1943 they obtained from the Board of Adjustment of the township permission to maintain and conduct on the premises a slaughterhouse "until the cessation of hostilities and three months thereafter." The premises nevertheless…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Howard Co. Jewelers v. N.J. State Bd. OptometristsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
  2. North Jersey Street Railway Co. v. Inhabitants of South OrangeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1899
  3. Balling v. Board of Excise of ElizabethSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
  4. New Yorker Staats-Zeitung v. NolanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1918
  5. S. R. Amusement Corp. v. QuinnNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1944

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bantam Books, Inc. v. MelkoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1953
  2. Toms River Pub. Co. v. Borough of ManasquanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
  3. Higgins v. KrogmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
  4. Iannella v. Piscataway TownshipNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
  5. Cohen v. SpoererNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947

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

Powered by the Exa API