TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH, JOANNE MAKELY, FRANK P. KRAUS AND NEILAN BOMAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, CRESSKILL BOROUGH, CLOSTER BOROUGH, FORT LEE BOROUGH, DEMAREST BOROUGH, LITTLE FERRY BOROUGH, EUGENE P. BARDEN, ELIAS M. ELIASOF, CHARLES WARK, EDWARD W. JANSEN, AND NICHOLAS CORBISCELLO, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, AND FAIR LAWN BOROUGH, ALPINE BOROUGH, TETERBORO TOWNSHIP, ALLENDALE BOROUGH, HACKENSACK CITY, ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS BOROUGH, RIDGEFIELD PARK BOROUGH, LODI BOROUGH, CARLSTADT BOROUGH, AND FAIRVIEW BOROUGH, DEFENDANTS, AND TEANECK TOWNSHIP AND WERNER H. SCHMID, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued October 10, 1984.
Decided January 14, 1985.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Brian T. Campion argued the cause for appellants and cross-respondents (Breslin and Breslin, attorneys; E. Carter Corriston, of counsel).
Anthony D. Andora argued the cause for respondents and cross-appellants Cresskill Borough, et al. (Andora, Palmisano, DeCotiis & Harris, attorneys; Anthony D. Andora and Jonathan N. Harris, on the briefs).
Jacob Schneider argued the cause for respondents Township of Teaneck, et al. (Schneider, Balt & Ciancia, attorneys; Peter D. Ciancia, on the brief).
Harry Haushalter, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent and cross-appellant Bergen County Board of Taxation (Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).
Joseph S. DiMaria submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of amicus curiae Borough of Paramus.
Stuart R. Koenig submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of amicus curiae Township of Cedar Grove (Stickel & Koenig, attorneys).
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by GARIBALDI, J.
Like the appeal in Newark Superior Officers Association, et al. v. The City of Newark, et al., and State of New Jersey, Department of Civil Service, et al.,98 N.J. 212 (1984), which we are also deciding today, this case presents the question of whether a statute that relies on population for its classification is special legislation enacted in violation of N.J. Const. ...
Let's get started
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.
