KOZESNIK v. MONTGOMERY TP, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Ralph S. Mason argued the cause for appellants ( Messrs. Mason, Griffin Moore, attorneys; Mr. Ralph S. Mason, of counsel; Mr. Kester R. Pierson, on the brief). Mr. George W. Allgair argued the cause for respondent Township of Montgomery ( Messrs. George W. Allgair and A. Dix Skillman, attorneys; Mr. George W. Allgair, of counsel). Mr. Fred G. Stickel, III, argued the cause for respondent Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company ( Messrs. Stickel Stickel, attorneys; Mr. Fred G. Stickel, III, of counsel).

Judges

The opinion of the court was delivered PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

FRANCIS J. KOZESNIK ET ALS., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TOWNSHIP OFMONTGOMERY ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered PER CURIAM.

In Kozesnik v. Montgomery Tp., 24 N.J. 154 (1957), an amendment to the zoning ordinance was declared invalid because of specific infirmities therein described. The township thereafter adopted another amendment free of those infirmities, and that amendment is the subject of the present litigation. The trial court sustained the ordinance. Before us plaintiffs assert the township officials failed to explore and to give sufficient consideration to the legislative issues involved. We agree with the trial court that there is no substance to the attack.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices BURLING, JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR and SCHETTINO — 6.

For reversal — None.

KOZESNIK v. MONTGOMERY TP

FRANCIS J. KOZESNIK ET ALS., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. TOWNSHIP OFMONTGOMERY ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Comments