1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 83 N.J.
  5. 83 N.J. Super. 323 (1964)
 

SCOTCH PLAINS TP. v. TOWN OF WESTFIELD

83 N.J. Super. 323 (1964)

199 A.2d 673

TOWNSHIP OF SCOTCH PLAINS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; PRESTON L. TALLEY, II AND HELEN K. TALLEY, HIS WIFE; HENRY A. MILNE AND IDA D. MILNE, HIS WIFE; EVERETT O. SIEGELE AND JESSIE S. SIEGELE, HIS WIFE; SARAH P. McINTOSH AND JOSEPH C. McINTOSH, HER HUSBAND; FREDERICK NEUMAN AND ROSLYN NEUMAN, HIS WIFE; RUSSELL N. CLARK AND MARGARET S. CLARK, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. TOWN OF WESTFIELD, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT. THOMAS H. STOUDT AND KATHRYN H. STOUDT, HIS WIFE; RUDOLF BARUCH AND KATHERINE M. BARUCH, HIS WIFE; ELLIOT A. HALLER; STANLEY E. LUBECK, SR. AND MARILYN E. LUBECK, HIS WIFE; HAYWARD BEATTY; HAROLD J. SHAHNAZARIAN AND GLADYS SHAHNAZARIAN, HIS WIFE; JOHN DeTORRE AND DOROTHY W. DeTORRE, HIS WIFE; EMIL BAER AND BETTY BAER, HIS WIFE; JOSEPH F. NELSON AND MARTHA NELSON, HIS WIFE; LYNN F. WRIGHT AND DOROTHY WRIGHT, HIS WIFE; NORMAN W. HOUSTON AND BETTY S. HOUSTON, HIS WIFE; ROBERT C. MILL AND CLAUDIA MILL, HIS WIFE; AND GEORGE VILLA AND EILENE VILLA, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. TOWN OF WESTFIELD IN THE COUNTY OF UNION, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.

Decided April 7, 1964.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Edward Sachar for plaintiffs Township of Scotch Plains et als. (Messrs. Sachar, Sachar & Bernstein, attorneys).

Mr. Fred G. Stickel, III for plaintiffs Thomas H. Stoudt et als. (Messrs. Stickel & Stickel, attorneys).

Mr. William F. Tompkins and Mr. Horace E. Baker for defendant (Messrs. Lum, Biunno & Tompkins and Mr. Horace E. Baker, co-counsel; Mr. Theodore L. Abeles on the brief).

FELLER, J.S.C.

These are consolidated actions in lieu of prerogative writs brought by the Township of Scotch Plains, residents of that township and various residents of the Town of Westfield, against the Town of Westfield. In this action plaintiffs demand judgment setting aside an ordinance enacted by the defendant and permanently enjoining it from taking any action pursuant to the ordinance. The ordinance in question is entitled:

"An Ordinance Providing for...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases