United Advertising Corp. v. Borough of Metuchen
| Decision Date | 30 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. A--139,A--139 |
| Parties | UNITED ADVERTISING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF METUCHEN and Irving T. Woerner, Building and Zoning Inspector, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Martin J. Loftus, Newark, for plaintiff-appellant.
Sam Weiss, Newark, for defendants-respondents (Leon Semer, Metuchen, attorney; Sam Weiss, Newark, on the brief).
Plaintiff is engaged in the business of erecting, maintaining and leasing outdoor advertising signs. On or about January 25, 1960, it applied to the building inspector of Metuchen for permits to erect two billboards. Both of these were to be located on lands owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad and leased to plaintiff. The site of one of the signs was within the B-1 (business) district, and of the second, within the M-1 (manufacturing) district, as established by the Metuchen zoning ordinance. The applications were denied for the reason that said ordinance prohibited the erection of any signs in the entire borough except to advertise businesses conducted, services rendered or products offered for sale on the premises upon which said signs were intended to be erected. Plaintiff filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs seeking to have these sections of the zoning ordinance so restricting the erection of billboards declared invalid and unconstitutional and to require the issuance of the permits to it. Defendants filed an answer admitting all of the allegations of the complaint except those contained in paragraphs 7 and 8, which read:
Defendants thereafter moved for a summary judgment without affidavits. Plaintiff filed an affidavit setting forth facts allegedly supporting its contention that the ordinance was arbitrary and unreasonable generally in the two zoning districts involved and specifically insofar as it prevented the erection of signs at the locations intended. Plaintiff's position as disclosed by the pleadings and amplified by said affidavit is that the subject ordinance 'as applied to the locations involved and under the facts and circumstances is unreasonable and that such an ordinance as applied to the districts involved is not a reasonable exercise of the police power in the interests of the health, safety, morals and welfare of the community of Metuchen.' The trial court relying principally upon United Advertising Corp. v. Borough of Raritan, 11 N.J. 144, 93 A.2d 362 (1952) granted defendants' motion. Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division and this court certified on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saldana v. DiMedio
...against groundless claims and frivolous defenses, it is not a substitute for a full plenary trial. United Advertising Corp. v. Metuchen, 35 N.J. 193, 195-96, 172 A.2d 429 (1961). In short, summary judgment should be denied unless the right thereto appears so clearly as to leave no room for ......
-
Henry v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
...genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute, a court will normally deny a motion for summary judgment. United Advertising Corp. v. Metuchen, 35 N.J. 193, 172 A.2d 429 (1961); Frank Rizzo, Inc. v. Alatsas, 27 N.J. 400, 142 A.2d 861 (1958); Welsh v. Griffith-Prideaux, Inc., 60 N.J.Super......
-
Gurski v. New Jersey State Police Dept.
...A.2d 1084 (App.Div.1981); Linn v. Rand, 140 N.J.Super. 212, 216, 356 A.2d 15 (App.Div.1976). See also United Advertising Corp. v. Metuchen, 35 N.J. 193, 195-196, 172 A.2d 429 (1961). Thus, in Ruvolo v. American Casualty Co., 39 N.J. 490, 499, 189 A.2d 204 (1963), our Supreme Court summarize......
-
Optopics Laboratories Corp. v. Sherman Laboratories, Inc.
...A.2d 1084 (App.Div.1981); Linn v. Rand, 140 N.J.Super. 212, 216, 356 A.2d 15 (App.Div.1976). See also United Advertising Corp. v. Metuchen, 35 N.J. 193, 195-196, 172 A.2d 429 (1961). Thus, in Ruvolo v. American Casualty Co., 39 N.J. 490, 499, 189 A.2d 204 (1963), our Supreme Court summarize......