Hills Development Co. v. Bernards Tp. in Somerset County
Decision Date | 20 February 1986 |
Docket Number | INC,BRUNSWICK-HAMPTO |
Citation | 510 A.2d 621,103 N.J. 1 |
Parties | The HILLS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS in the COUNTY OF SOMERSET, a municipal corporation of the State of New Jersey, the Township Committee of the Township of Bernards, the Planning Board of the Township of Bernards, and the Sewerage Authority of the Township of Bernards, Defendants-Appellants. Helen MOTZENBECKER, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF the BOROUGH OF BERNARDSVILLE and the Borough of Bernardsville, Defendants-Appellants. URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER NEW BRUNSWICK, a nonprofit corporation of the State of New Jersey, Cleveland Benson, Judith Champion, Barbara Tippett and Kenneth Tuskey, on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, and Fannie Botts, Lydia Cruz and Jean White, Plaintiffs, v. The MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF the BOROUGH OF CARTERET, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Dunellen, Township Committee of the Township of East Brunswick, Township Committee of the Township of Edison, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Helmetta, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Highland Park, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Jamesburg, Township Committee of the Township of Madison, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Metuchen, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Middlesex, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Milltown, Township Committee of the Township of Monroe, Township Committee of the Township of North Brunswick, Township, Township Committee of the Township of Piscataway, Township Committee of the Township of Plainsboro, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Sayreville, Mayor and Council of the City of South Amboy, Township Committee of the Township of South Brunswick, Mayor and Council of the Borough of South Plainfield, Mayor and Council of the Borough of South River, Mayor and Council of the Borough of Spotswood, Township Committee of the Township of Woodbridge, Defendants, and Township Committee of the Township of Cranbury, Defendant-Appellant. GARFIELD AND COMPANY, Pl |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
To continue reading
Request your trial69 cases
-
Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City
...municipal ordinances pursuant to Article VI, Section V, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution. Hills Development Company v. Bernards , 103 N.J. 1, 44–45, 510 A.2d 621 (N.J. 1986). Furthermore, any fines issued by Jersey City municipal courts pursuant to Ordinance 19-077 could be appeal......
-
General Motors Corp. v. City of Linden
... ... 1045, 110 S.Ct. 841, 107 L. Ed.2d 836 (1990); Hills Dev. Co. v. Township of Bernards, 103 N.J. 1, 510 A.2d 621 ... ...
-
State v. Novembrino
...to pass upon the constitutionality of any action undertaken by the other branches of government. See Hills Dev. Co. v. Bernards Tp. in Somerset Cty., 103 N.J. 1, 510 A.2d 621 (1986). In the meantime, I continue to believe strongly in the significance of the exclusionary rule in serving the ......
-
Holmdel Builders Ass'n v. Township of Holmdel
...a specific "fair share" number to each municipality. N.J.S.A. 52:27D-307. See also generally Hills Dev. Co. v. Bernards Tp. in Somerset Cty., 103 N.J. 1, 21-23, 510 A.2d 621 (1986). The Act sets forth a number of permissible zoning techniques available to municipalities to meet their fair s......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Affordable Housing And The Mount Laurel Doctrine In New Jersey: Solving The Geometry Of Chaos
...obligation has not changed; the judiciary's ultimate duty to enforce it has not changed. Hills Development Co. v Bernards Twp. 103 NJ 1, 65 Any further or continued inaction by the court to enforce its orders of September 26, 2013, and March 14, 2014, would be akin to aiding and abetting th......
6 books & journal articles
-
The Centrality of Exclusion: Legal Impediments to Keeping 'Undesirable' People and Uses Out of the Community
...that the legislative branch had an important role to play, was the court protesting too much? HILLS DEVELOPMENT CO. v. TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS 103 N.J. 1, 510 A.2d 621 (1986) [MOUNT LAUREL III] The opinion of the Court was delivered by WILENTZ, C.J. In this appeal we are called upon to determi......
-
Ashira Pelman Ostrow, Land Law Federalism
...to use proxies, such as single-family homes on large lots in the suburbs).See Hills Dev. Co. v. Township of Bernards (Mount Laurel III), 510 A.2d 621 (N.J. 1986); S. BurlingtonCnty. NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (Mount Laurel II), 456 A.2d 390 (N.J. 1983); S. Burlington Cnty. NAACP v. T......
-
A Mount Laurel for Climate Change? The Judicial Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Land Use and Transportation
...Judges 36 (1996). 42. See N.J. Stat. Ann. §§52:27D-301 to 52:27D-329.19 (West 2018); Hills Dev. Co. v. Bernards Twp. ( Mount Laurel III ), 510 A.2d 621, 631 (N.J. 1986) (noting the FHA was “the Legislature’s response to the Mount Laurel cases”); In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 & 5:97 by the......
-
Collective individualism: deconstructing the legal city.
...1983) (Mount Laurel In (clarifying and strengthening the original decision in Mount Laurel I); Hills Dev. Co. v. Township of Bernards, 510 A.2d 621, 654 (1986) (Mount Laurel III) (reinforcing the commitment to "the provision of a realistic opportunity for the construction of needed lower in......
Request a trial to view additional results