Legal Opinion

In Re Application of Wellhofer

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided September 30, 1952PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The judgment is affirmed.

It is said in the opinion of the Appellate Division that the proceeding under B. S. 40:6-1, et seq. “is in no sense against any one, and no conclusion therein is to be reached by the judge or the court.” The case of Hoboken v. O’Neill, 74 N. J. L. 57 (Sup. Ct. 1906) is cited for the proposition that no “conclusion” by the appointing judicial officer is permissible. There, the old Supreme Court said that the statute “does not purport to require any conclusion to be reached on the part of the justice or of any court, but merely directs that he - may cause the result…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Matter of Application of RiesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1955
  2. Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
  3. Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API