Legal Opinion
Kozesnik v. Township of Montgomery
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided April 8, 1957PublishedCited by 165 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*161The opinion of the court was delivered by
Wentraub, J.
Plaintiffs challenge the validity of amendments to the zoning ordinances of the Township of Hills-borough and the Township of Montgomery. The trial court upheld the measures. On our own motion we certified appeals prosecuted to the Appellate Division.
Early in 1953 Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (herein called 3M) informed the townships of the existence of diabase rock of unusual quality in the Sourland Mountain, and asked for amendments of their respective ordinances to the end that it might quarry and process the rock for…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. ThatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Rodgers v. Village of TarrytownNew York Court of Appeals · 1951
- Vernon Park Realty, Inc. v. City of Mount VernonNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
- McCarthy v. City of Manhattan BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by165 opinions
- Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee of the Township of ManalapanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
- TAXPAYERS ASSN. OF WEYMOUTH TP. INC. v. Weymouth Tp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1976
- Brunetti v. Borough of New MilfordSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1975
- Holmdel Builders Ass'n v. Township of HolmdelSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
- Kenwood Assocs. v. Bd. of Adj. EnglewoodNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976
160 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.