Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee of the Township of Manalapan

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 6, 1995Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partStein, J.

This appeal as of right based on the dissent below, see Rule 2:2-1(a)(2), is limited to the validity of two amendments to the Manalapan Zoning Ordinance adopted in July 1991. Specifically, Judge Wefing’s dissent disagreed with the Appellate Division’s holding that the amendments were not arbitrary and capricious and were not substantially inconsistent with Manalapan’s Master Plan. 272 N.J.Super. 1, 19-21, 639 A.2d 318 (App.Div.1994) (Wefing, J., dissenting). Although the Court’s opinion acknowledges that Manalapan has subsequently adopted a new zoning ordinance that affects the substance of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Busik v. LevineSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
  2. State v. BakerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
  3. Lusardi v. Curtis Point Property Owners Ass'nSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  4. Plainfield-Union Water Co. v. Borough of MountainsideSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1954
  5. Lizak v. FariaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984

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

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

Powered by the Exa API