Board of Ed. of Town of Morristown v. Palmer
Decision Date | 21 March 1966 |
Docket Number | No. A--99,A--99 |
Citation | 218 A.2d 153,46 N.J. 522 |
Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the TOWN OF MORRISTOWN, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dwight R. G. PALMER, Commissioner, State Highway Department, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
William J. McCormack, Deputy Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellant Dwight R. G. Palmer, Com'r, State Highway Department (Edward D. McKirdy, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief; Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., of New Jersey, attorney).
Theodore W. Geiser, Newark, for defendant-appellant New Jersey Highway Authority (Sonia Napolitano, Newark, on the brief; Pindar, McElroy, Connell & Foley, Newark, attorneys).
Clive S. Cummis, Newark, for plaintiff-respondent (Michael B. Tischman, Westfield, and Steven S. Radin, Newark, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered
The State Highway Department is engaged in constructing Interstate Highway Route 287, a wide, high speed, limited access super-highway, part of which is to run through the Town of Morristown, New Jersey. A section of the highway and an interchange or ramp system to be connected with it are to be constructed in close proximity to the George Washington Elementary School in the town. None of the work in the vicinity of the school had been started when this proceeding was instituted. In fact, although construction of the roadway is progressing toward the school site, it is still a considerable distance away.
Plans and drawings purporting to show the proposed location of the highway and ramps and the character of their construction in the George Washington School area, came to the attention of the Morristown Board of Education, owner of the school. Study of these documents led the board to conclude that upon completion of the project, the school will become an island surrounded by highway, access roads and ramps, and that a portion of the rear of the school property, used as a playground, actually would be taken. Believing that the circumstances in their totality would result in a destruction of the beneficial use of the building and land for school purposes, and that such result would constitute a taking of the property itself, the board brought this action against Dwight R. G. Palmer, Commissioner, State Highway Department, and New Jersey Highway Authority (which all parties now concede is not involved in the particular highway project). The principal relief sought is an injunction restraining the construction as planned in the vicinity of the school, or in the alternative, an order compelling the Commissioner to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire the school property and to pay just compensation therefor.
The trial court dismissed the complaint on preliminary motion holding that since the affidavits submitted by the parties as well as the other documentary proof did not show the physical taking or invasion of any portion of plaintiff's property, no cause of action existed. Appeal from the judgment of dismissal was taken to the Appellate Division. There the court felt the affidavits, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Volunteers of America
...485 P.2d 628, 630; and Bd. of Ed. of Morristown v. Palmer (1965) 88 N.J.Super. 378, 212 A.2d 564, 568--571, revd. as premature (1966) 46 N.J. 522, 218 A.2d 153. ...
-
State by Com'r of Transp. v. Carroll
...even for "special use" properties. In Board of Education v. Palmer, 88 N.J.Super. 378, 212 A.2d 564 (App.Div.1965), rev'd, 46 N.J. 522, 218 A.2d 153 (1966), the Appellate Division had found that highway construction would destroy the beneficial use of a school property because of, inter ali......
-
East Rutherford Indus. Park, Inc. v. State
...Ct.App.1963). See also, Board of Educ. of Morristown v. Palmer, 88 N.J.Super. 378, 386--387, 212 A.2d 564 (App.Div.1965), rev'd 46 N.J. 522, 218 A.2d 153 (1966), wherein Judge Goldmann found that a proposed highway would deprive the plaintiff school of the beneficial use of its property by ......
- State v. Manning