Legal Opinion

Mogolefsky v. Schoem

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided December 22, 1967PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hall, J.

The plaintiffs are real estate salesmen duly licensed by the New Jersey Real Estate Commission. They are employed by J. I. Kislak, Inc., a real estate broker similarly licensed, which engages in brokerage of residential and other property in various parts of the state. One of its methods of securing residential property to sell is to have its salesman go from house to house in a community, without prior invitation or appointment, soliciting sales listings. While so doing in the city of Clifton, plaintiffs were arrested for violating the city’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moyant v. Borough of ParamusSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
  2. City of Clifton v. WeberSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
  3. Coculo v. City of TrentonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1964
  4. Mogelefsky v. SchoemNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1966

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Brunetti v. Borough of New MilfordSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1975
  2. United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY CAMDENSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  3. Inganamort v. Bor. of Fort LeeNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1972
  4. Hudson Circle Servicenter, Inc. v. KearnySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1976
  5. Township of Chester v. PanicucciSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1973

18 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