Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Daniel Tumpson v. James Farina (072813)
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided July 31, 2014No. A-13/14-13Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Patterson
The majority holds today that the City Clerk of the City of Hoboken did not properly apply the Faulkner Act, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-185 to -192, when he refused to file the petition submitted by the challengers to Ordinance Z-88, and that the Clerk’s action deprived plaintiffs of their rights under that Act, in violation of N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c) of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA). I concur with the majority that if the City of Hoboken interfered with plaintiffs’ due process right of referendum with respect to the disputed ordinance, or attempted to do so, it did not do so “by threats,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Zinermon v. BurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lippoldt v. ColeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2006
- Richard W. Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, Counties of Cook and Will and Stateof Illinois, a Body Politic and CorporateCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
- Darrell Burch v. Apalachee Community Mental Health Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1988
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.