Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kandle
| Decision Date | 08 May 1969 |
| Citation | 54 N.J. 11,252 A.2d 403 |
| Parties | CONSOLIDATION COAL CO., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Roscoe P. KANDLE, Commissioner, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 105 N.J.Super. 104, 251 A.2d 295.
Theodore W. Geiser, Newark, for appellants (Pindar, McElroy, Connell & Foley, Newark, and McLaughlin, Dawes & Abbotts, Trenton, attorneys).
William J. Brennan, III, Trenton, for respondents (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorneys).
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Goldmann in the Appellate Division, 105 N.J.Super. 104, 251 A.2d 295.
For affirmance: Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN--7.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Jersey Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v. Long
...by an administrative agency is Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kandle, 105 N.J.Super. 104, 251 A.2d 295 (App.Div.1969), aff'd o.b. 54 N.J. 11, 252 A.2d 403 (1969). Judge Goldmann, writing for the court, there held that quasi-legislative administrative rulemaking does not require specific findings......
-
New Jersey Builders Ass'n v. Department of Environmental Protection
...arbitrary and capricious. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kandle, 105 N.J.Super. 104, 112-120, 251 A.2d 295 (App.Div.1969), aff'd o.b. 54 N.J. 11, 252 A.2d 403 (1969). Appellants also contend that the regulations are unreasonable because the criteria cannot be economically met when septic systems......
-
American Cyanamid Co. v. State, Dept. of Environmental Protection
...be presumed." Consolidation Coal Co., et al. v. Kandle, et al., 105 N.J.Super. 104, 114, 251 A.2d 295 (App.Div.1969), aff'd o.b. 54 N.J. 11, 252 A.2d 403 (1969). See also Bergen Pines Hosp. v. Dept. of Human Services, supra, 96 N.J. at 477, 476 A.2d 784; In re Promulgation of Rules of Pract......
-
Motyka v. McCorkle
...et seq.; Consolidation Coal Co., et al. v. Kandle, et al., 105 N.J.Super. 104, 112--120, 251 A.2d 295 (App.Div.), aff'd, 54 N.J. 11, 252 A.2d 403 (1969); Cf. Abbotts Dairies, Inc. v. Armstrong, 14 N.J. 319, 332, 102 A.2d 372 (1954); The Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Dept. of Public Utilities......