Staubach v. Cities Service Oil Co.

Decision Date29 April 1943
CitationStaubach v. Cities Service Oil Co., 130 N.J.L. 157, 31 A.2d 804 (N.J. 1943)
Docket Number25
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court
PartiesANNA STAUBACH, APPELLANT, v. CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY, RESPONDENT

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Anna Staubach, claimant, opposed by the Cities Service Oil Company, employer of claimant's deceased husband. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 127 N.J.L. 577, 24 A.2d 193, dismissing an order to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue to review a judgment dismissing her petition, claimant appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

HEHER, Justice, and RAFFERTY, Judge, dissenting.

1. A refusal by the Supreme Court to allow a writ of certiorari is not a subject for judicial review.

2. The Supreme Court has the inherent right to review by certiorari but its exercise thereof is purely discretionary and remains so even though an appeal, provided by statute, has not been taken.

Julius Kwalick and Joseph Butt, both of Elizabeth (Stanley W. Greenfield, of Elizabeth, of counsel), for appellant.

John W. Taylor, of Newark, for respondent.

THE CHANCELLOR.

This is a workman's compensation cause and the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing an order to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue.

In passing upon the question before us, it is not necessary to detail the facts except as the procedure is disclosed by the record.

The cause was heard in the Bureau May 13, 1940, disposed of there May 24, 1940, by a determination dismissing the petition. Thereafter, on September 26, 1940, the petitioner, appellant here, instituted an action for negligence in the Court of Common Pleas of Union County. The complaint was struck out and upon appeal such action was affirmed by the Supreme Court, Staubach v. Cities Service Oil Co., 126 N.J.L. 479, 19 A.2d 882, the opinion of that Court being delivered May 13, 1941. On November, 1, 1941, an application for a writ of certiorari was made to and a rule to show cause why such writ should not issue was allowed by Mr. Justice Case. The rule to show cause was argued before the Supreme Court and that Court on February 3, 1942, 127 N.J.L. 577, 24 A.2d 193, decided that its writ should not issue and dismissed the rule to show cause; such judgment being entered March 11, 1942.

This appeal therefrom was then taken, the notice and grounds of appeal being filed December 29, 1942.

There was no appeal from the determination of the Bureau to the Common Pleas as provided by Statute, R.S. 34:15-66, N.J.S.A. 34:15-66, and the time within which to do so has long gone by and had when the writ was applied for.

The...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • Switz v. Middletown Tp., Monmouth County
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1957
    ...62 S.Ct. 53, 87 L.Ed. 527 (1942); Burlington County v. Martin, 129 N.J.L. 92, 28 A.2d 116 (E. & A.1942); Staubach v. Cities Service Oil Co., 130 N.J.L. 157, 31 A.2d 804 (E. & A.1943); Gallena v. Scott, 1 N.J. 430, 64 A.2d 77 (1949). No matter how meritorious the cause, the denial of the wri......
  • Barry v. Wallace J. Wilck, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • January 13, 1961
    ...137 N.J.L. 132, 58 A.2d 866 (Sup.Ct.1948), reversed on other grounds, 2 N.J. 64, 65 A.2d 61 (1949); Staubach v. Cities Service Oil Co., 130 N.J.L. 157, 31 A.2d 804 (E. & A.1943). From the foregoing we conclude that, unless the situation has been changed by the rules adopted since 1948, the ......
  • Hillsborough Tp Somerset County v. Cromwell
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1946
    ...Schwartz v. Essex County Board, 129 N.J.L. 129, 132, 28 A.2d 482, 484, affirmed 130 N.J.L. 177, 32 A.2d 354. 4 Staubach v. Cities Service Oil Co., 130 N.J.L. 157, 31 A.2d 804. 5 Post v. Anderson, 111 N.J.L. 303, 168 A. 622; Staubach v. Cities Service Oil Co., supra, note 4. 6 N.J.Rev.Stat. ......
  • City Affairs Committee of Jersey City v. Board of Commissioners of City of Jersey City
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1946
    ...presented. The refusal of the Supreme Court in that case to grant certiorari prevented an appeal to this Court (Staubach v. Cities Service Oil Co., 130 N.J.L. 157, 31 A.2d 804) and put the matter in controversy at final rest. Under these circumstances, municipal officials had a perfect righ......
  • Get Started for Free