Legal Opinion
Schwam v. Township of Cedar Grove
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided November 7, 1988PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
228 N.J. Super. 522 (1988)
550 A.2d 502
BERNARD SCHWAM, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF CEDAR GROVE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-CROSS-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued September 30, 1988.
Decided November 7, 1988.
Before Judges PETRELLA and GRUCCIO.
Michael D. Sullivan argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent (Stickel, Koenig & Sullivan, attorneys; Michael D. Sullivan, on the brief).
Steven R. Irwin argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant (Mandelbaum & Mandelbaum, attorneys; Steven R. Irwin, on the brief).
2Per curiam
The Township of Cedar Grove has…
3Cases cited15 opinions
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1974
- In Re the Appeals of Kents 2124 Atlantic Ave., Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
- Pantasote Co. v. City of PassaicSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
- Baldwin Const. Co. v. ESSEX COUNTY BD. OF TAXATION AND CITY OF EAST ORANGESupreme Court of New Jersey · 1954
- Murnick v. City of Asbury ParkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by19 opinions
- Township of West Milford v. Van DeckerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
- West Milford Tp. v. Van DeckerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1989
- REGENT CARE v. Hackensack CityNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2003
- M.I. Holdings, Inc. v. City of Jersey CityNew Jersey Tax Court · 1991
- Prowitz v. Ridgefield Park VillageNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1989
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.