Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brown v. City of Newark

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided January 18, 1989Published

1DissentO’Hern, J.

I would have thought that an ordinance that defined the peddler’s activity as the Supreme Court has done would pass muster. The plaintiffs, however, have used the label “perpetual motion ordinance” to disable and to raise doubt about an otherwise familiar description of the business of peddling.

The idea of the peddler is that of “an itinerant or traveling trader, who carries goods about in order to sell them, and who actually sells them to purchasers, in contradistinction to a trader who has goods for sale and sells them in a fixed place of business.” Emert v. Missouri, 156 U.S. 296, 308, 15…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Emert v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  4. Wagner v. City of CovingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  5. IDK, Inc. v. County of ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988

3 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