Legal Opinion
Van Winkle v. Borough of Rutherford
New Jersey Tax Court
Decided January 9, 1992PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SMALL, J.T.C.
This case places the court in the uncomfortable position of rejecting plaintiffs’ unopposed application for relief. Just as litigants cannot agree to confer jurisdiction on a court which lacks the statutory authority to hear a matter, see, e.g., Peper v. Princeton University, 77 N.J. 55, 65-66, 389 A.2d 465 (1978); Township of Jackson v. Marsyll of B.B., 3 N.J.Tax 386, 391 (Tax Ct.1981); Manczak v. Township of Dover, 2 N.J.Tax 529, 533 (Tax Ct.1981), they cannot agree to have the court grant relief for which there is no authority.
Plaintiffs have moved, without opposition by…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Peper v. Princeton University Board of TrusteesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1978
- F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris PlainsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
- Princeton University Press v. Borough of PrincetonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
- Farmingdale Realty Co. v. Borough of FarmingdaleSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
- Manczak v. Township of DoverNew Jersey Tax Court · 1981
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hovbilt, Inc. v. Township of HowellSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
- Black United Fund Inc. v. City of East OrangeNew Jersey Tax Court · 1998
- Anderson v. Director, Division of TaxationNew Jersey Tax Court · 2008
- Borough of Paramus v. Etaner EnterprisesNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1995
- Cerame v. Township CommitteeNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.