Legal Opinion
Patel v. Planning Bd.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided June 18, 1992PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
258 N.J. Super. 437 (1992)
609 A.2d 1319
DR. C. PATEL AND AATHMA, INC., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WOODBRIDGE, DEFENDANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.
June 18, 1992.
Gordon Berkow, for the plaintiffs (Hutt & Berkow, attorneys).
Mark J. Rogoff, for the defendant.
WOLFSON, J.S.C.
The novel issues of statutory interpretation and application which present themselves in this zoning case arise out of the voting eligibility requirements embodied in the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq.
In July, 1991, plaintiffs applied to the Woodbridge Township…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Kramer v. BD. OF ADJUST., SEA GIRT.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
- Medici v. BPR Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
- Levin v. Township of Parsippany-Troy HillsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Dolan v. DeCapuaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1954
- Manalapan Holding Co. v. Planning Board of HamiltonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hoover, Inc. v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning AppealsCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1997
- Pizzo Mantin Group v. Township of RandolphSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
- Mercurio v. DelVecchioNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1995
- Island Club Condominium Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Atlantic CityNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1995
- Thomas v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1997