Contract for Route 280, Section 7U Exit Project, In re
| Decision Date | 19 February 1982 |
| Citation | 444 A.2d 51,89 N.J. 1 |
| Parties | In the Matter of CONTRACT FOR ROUTE 280, SECTION 7U EXIT PROJECT. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
This appeal having been certified by the Court, 88 N.J. 473, 443 A.2d 692 (1981), upon the petition of the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation seeking review of the final judgment of the Appellate Division whose decision is reported at 179 N.J.Super. 280, 431 A.2d 848 (1981); and the Court having considered the briefs and oral argument of the parties; and the Court having reviewed the final judgment and decision of the Appellate Division; and
The Court now being satisfied that grounds for certification do not exist under R. 2:12-4 for the reasons that (1) the final judgment of the Appellate Division is essentially an application of the principles enunciated by this Court in Terminal Const. Corp. v. Atlantic City Sewerage Auth., 67 N.J. 403, 341 A.2d 327 (1975) to the facts of this case and does not therefore present an unsettled question of general public importance; (2) the appeal is moot as to the parties to the litigation and does not therefore present a matter required to be adjudicated by this Court in the interest of justice; (3) Marvec Allstate, Inc. v. Gray & Pear, Inc., 148 N.J.Super. 481, 372 A.2d 1156 (App.Div.1977), cited by the court below, is not essential to its final judgment and is hereby disapproved as precedential authority; (4) the decision on review does not present a conflict among judicial decisions that requires clarification or calls for this Court's supervision; and (5) no other certifiable questions are presented under the appropriate Rules Governing the Courts;
It is ORDERED that, certification having been improvidently granted, the within appeal is dismissed.
For vacation -Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O'HERN-7.
Opposed -None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L. Pucillo & Sons, Inc. v. Township of Belleville
...1156 (App.Div.1977) (discrepancy in bid bond was waivable when corrected within twenty-four hours), disapproved, In re Contract for Route 280, 89 N.J. 1, 444 A.2d 51 (1982), and Township of Hanover v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 122 N.J.Super. 544, 301 A.2d 163 (App.Div.1973) (holding ......
-
Fox v. Woodbridge Tp. Bd. of Educ.
...and (3) no other certifiable questions are presented under the appropriate Rules Governing the Courts. In re Route 280 Contract, 89 N.J. 1, 1-2, 444 A.2d 51 (1982). GARIBALDI, J., The majority of the Court would vacate certification in this case. I would not. The key issue here is whether a......
-
Bandel v. Friedrich
...cause to an intensely-factual situation, in no way implicating "an unsettled question of general public importance." In re Route 280 Contract, 89 N.J. 1, 444 A.2d 51 (1982). We also are not persuaded that the question requires invocation of "our certification authority in 'the interest of j......
-
Mahony v. Danis
...R. 2:12-4. The application of these standards in this case reveals no substantial grounds for certification. See In re Route 280 Contract, 89 N.J. 1, 444 A.2d 51 (1982). There are in this matter, arguably, several reasons that could be advanced to justify the grant of certification. One is ......