Legal Opinion
Woodland Private Study Group v. State of NJ
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided August 29, 1985No. Civ. A. 85-2291PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BROTMAN, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (“3M”) and Rohm and Haas Company (“R & H”), who together constitute the “Woodland Private Study Group,” bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief from alleged deprivations of their property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq. The court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. R & H and 3M name as defendants the…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. HaldermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Woodland Private Study Group v. StateSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
- Matter of Kimber Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
- Buonviaggio v. Hillsborough Township CommitteeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
- New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection v. Gloucester Environmental Management Services, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1995
- Enertron Industries, Inc. v. MacKNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1990
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.