Legal Opinion
Woodland Private Study Group v. State
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided November 16, 1987PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
CLIFFORD, Justice.
Plaintiffs, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and Rohm and Haas Company, known collectively as Woodland Private Study Group, challenge an Administrative Order, AO-69, issued by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. Annexed to the order is a “policy statement” regarding “Participation of Responsible Parties in the Development of Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies.” Plaintiffs are “Responsible Parties” within the meaning of that policy statement. They contend that AO-69 amounts to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Metromedia, Inc. v. Director, Division of TaxationSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Richard A. Batterton, Secretary of Employment & Social Services of the State of Maryland v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of LaborCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- Richard Pickus v. United States Board of ParoleCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
- Standard Oil Co. v. Department of EnergyTemporary Emergency Court of Appeals · 1978
- In Re the Request for Solid Waste Utility Customer ListsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Doe v. PoritzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
- Accountemps Division of Robert Half of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Birch Tree Group, Ltd.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
- University Cottage Club of Princeton New Jersey Corp. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental ProtectionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
- CPS Chemical Co., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988
- In re N.J.A.C. 7:1B-1.1New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2013
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.