Legal Opinion

Ostrowsky v. Newark

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided January 14, 1928PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The complainants are the owners of lands and premises known as 373-375 Hillside avenue, Newark, New Jersey. The defendants are the city of Newark; Frederick Bigelow, superintendent of buildings of the city of Newark, and the board of adjustment of the city of Newark. This matter comes before me on the return of an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued restraining the defendants from interfering with complainants' erection of a sixteen-family apartment house on the premises in question, under a building permit issued therefor by the superintendent of buildings.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. City of Lowell v. ArchambaultMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
  2. Hanley v. CookMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
  3. Quinn v. Middlesex Electric Light Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
  4. Montefiore Cemetery Co. v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1925
  5. City of Buffalo v. ChadeayneSuperior Court of Buffalo · 1889

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Cities Service Oil Co. v. Board of AppealsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  2. North Plainfield v. PeroneNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
  3. State Ex Rel. Lavoie v. Building CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
  4. Woodley Park Community Ass'n v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning AdjustmentDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. State Ex Rel. Green's Bottom Sportsmen, Inc. v. St. Charles County Board of AdjustmentMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977

7 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