Legal Opinion
Littman v. Gimello
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided May 4, 1989PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
GARIBALDI, J.
Plaintiffs claim that the declaration of their property as a potential site for a hazardous-waste facility under the New Jersey Major Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Act (“Act”), N.J.S.A. 13:lE-49 to -91, L.1981, c. 279, constitutes a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. We hold that it does not.
I
The New Jersey Hazardous Waste Siting Commission (“Commission”) was established pursuant to the Act to designate sites for hazardous waste storage, treatment, and disposal.…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Agins v. City of TiburonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Danforth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- Portee v. JaffeeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Wilson v. City of Long BranchSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Westgate, Ltd. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1992
- Gardner v. New Jersey Pinelands CommissionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
- Pheasant Bridge Corp. v. Township of WarrenSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
- Slowinski v. Valley Nat. BankNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1993
- Township of West Windsor v. NierenbergSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.