State v. Wittenberg
| Decision Date | 28 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. A--100,A--100 |
| Citation | 141 A.2d 57,26 N.J. 576 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey (Board of Health of the Township of Clinton), Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Henry WITTENBERG and Herman Wittenberg, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
George Pellettieri, Trenton, argued the cause for defendants-appellants (Pellettieri & Rabstein, Trenton, and Italo M. Tarantola, Flemington, attorneys; Ruth Rabstein, Trenton, on the brief).
Wesley L. Lance, Clinton, argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed for the reasons stated in the Per curiam opinion of the Appellate Division reported in 50 N.J.Super. 74, 141 A.2d 52 (1957).
At the oral argument before us, appellants suggested that at the De novo appeal in the County Court, they were improperly precluded from offering certain factual proof bearing upon the issue of the constitutionality of the ordinance, because the court took the erroneous view that the determination in the declaratory judgment action had settled the problem of conflict with the organic law. Examination of the record satisfies us that there was no adequate offer of any such proof. For this reason, as well as those set forth in the opinion below, we agree that no basis is presented for reversal.
For affirmance: Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices HEHER, WACHENFELD, BURLING, JACOBS, FRANCIS and PROCTOR--7.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moyant v. Borough of Paramus
... ... 30 N.J. 528 ... 154 A.2d 9 ... John MOYANT, Jr., Plaintiff-Respondent, ... BOROUGH OF PARAMUS, a municipal corporation of the State of ... New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant ... No. A--137 ... Supreme Court of New Jersey ... Argued June 4, 1959 ... Decided Aug. 3, 1959 ... Guill v. Mayor and Council of City of Hoboken, 21 N.J. 574, 581, 122 A.2d 881 (1956); State v. Wittenberg, 50 N.J.Super. 74, 78, 141 A.2d 52 (App.Div.1957), affirmed 26 N.J. 576, 141 A.2d 57 (1958) ... The ordinance commences by making ... ...
-
Csaki v. Woodbridge Tp.
... ... Since the municipality had reached its debt limit the State Board of Health, finding that the 'expenditure and every part thereof, is necessary to protect the public health and to prevent or suppress a present ... Wittenberg, 26 N.J. 576, 141 A.2d 57 (1958); and the one attacking it has the burden of overcoming the presumption of reasonableness. Oliva v. Garfield, 1 N.J ... ...
-
Taxi's Inc. v. Borough of East Rutherford
... Page 294 ... 149 N.J.Super. 294 ... 373 A.2d 717 ... TAXI'S INC., a corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff, ... BOROUGH OF EAST RUTHERFORD, a municipal corporation of the ... State of New Jersey, Defendant ... Superior Court ... Paramus, 30 N.J. 528, 535, 154 A.2d 9 (1959); Guill v. Hoboken Mayor and Council, 21 N.J. 574, 581, 122 A.2d 881 (1956); State v. Wittenberg, 50 N.J.Super. 74, 78, 141 A.2d 52 (App.Div.1957), aff'd 26 N.J. 576, 141 A.2d 57 (1958) ... Page 305 ... A municipality is but ... ...
-
Pettit v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue , Docket No. 2518-71.
... ... The New Jersey appellate court's subsequent declaration that the pertinent ordinance was unconstitutional did not affect the prevailing state of mind of petitioners on the date of the conveyance so as to produce the necessary donative intent. GOFFE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency ... It is axiomatic that such ordinances are presumed to be constitutional. Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926); State v. Wittenberg, 50 N.J.Super. 74, 141 A.2d 52 (1957), affd. 26 N.J. 576, 141 A.2d 57 (1958). The subsequent declaration of invalidity of the ordinance in question ... ...