City of Clifton v. Weber
| Decision Date | 22 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. A--83,A--83 |
| Citation | 44 N.J. 266,208 A.2d 401 |
| Parties | CITY OF CLIFTON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Donald P. WEBER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
David B. Buerger, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant (William L. Dill, Jr., and Bartholomew T. Zanelli, Newark, of counsel, Stryker, Tams & Dill, Newark, attorneys).
Sam Monchak, Clifton, for respondent (Nicholas G. Mandak, Passaic, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered
The Appellate Division affirmed a conviction for violation of a municipal ordinance, City of Clifton v. Weber, 84 N.J.Super. 333, 202 A.2d 186 (1964), and one judge dissenting, the defendant prosecuted this appeal to us. R.R. 1:2--1(b).
The ordinance regulates house-to-house soliciting or canvassing. Defendant charged the ordinance imposes an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce.
It developed at the argument before us that the attack upon the ordinance was prompted by an assumption that the ordinance applied notwithstanding that the householder invited a salesman to call. The municipality disclaims that purpose and concedes the ordinance does not apply where there is an invitation from or prior appointment with the occupant. The municipality, however, does insist that here there was no such invitation or appointment, and the defendant concedes this to be the fact.
Since the defendant expressly refrains from assailing the ordinance as thus understood, and since a violation of the ordinance upon that premise is not disputed, no issue remains for our consideration and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
For affirmance: Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN--7.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borough of Collingswood v. Ringgold
...v. Schoem, 50 N.J. 588, 595, 236 A.2d 874 (1967); Clifton v. Weber, 84 N.J.Super. 333, 336, 202 A.2d 186 (App.Div.1964), aff'd, 44 N.J. 266, 208 A.2d 401 (1965); Moyant v. Paramus, Supra, 30 N.J. at 544, 154 A.2d 9. As long as the requirements imposed by such an ordinance are substantially ......
-
Supermarkets General Corp. v. Sills
...v. Hoffman, 40 N.J. 475, 193 A.2d 125 (1963); City of Clifton v. Weber, 84 N.J.Super. 333, 202 A.2d 186 (App.Div.1964), affirmed 44 N.J. 266, 208 A.2d 401 (1964). The statute must materially affect interstate commerce in order to be deemed unconstitutional. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Sav-on Drugs......
-
Silco Automatic Vending Co. v. Puma
...that attaches to a municipal ordinance. City of Clifton v. Weber, 84 N.J.Super. 333, 339, 202 A.2d 186 (App.Div. 1964), affirmed 44 N.J. 266, 208 A.2d 401 (1965). Under the circumstances, should licenses issued under an ordinance that is presumed to be valid, and while the presumption of va......
-
Little Falls Tp. v. Husni
...supra, 100 N.J.Super at 55--56, 241 A.2d 4; Clifton v. Weber, 84 N.J.Super. 333, 339, 202 A.2d 186 (App.Div.1964), aff'd 44 N.J. 266, 208 A.2d 401 (1965). Although the factual background which motivated plaintiff municipality to pass this ordinance was not developed at trial, a reading of a......