Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1942

Appley v. Township Committee of Bernards

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Decided September 18, 1942 · PER CURIAM.

28 A.2d 177; 129 N.J.L. 73; 1942 N.J. LEXIS 277 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Tucker v. State Bar (Cal. 1947)
S & L ASSOCIATES, INC. v. Washington Twp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1960)
Al Walker, Inc. v. Borough of Stanhope (N.J. 1957)
Bogert v. Washington Twp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1957)
Jones v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, Long Beach Tp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1954)
Sieber v. Laawe (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1954)
Conlon v. BD. OF PUBLIC WORKS, CITY OF PATERSON (N.J. 1953)
VF Zahodiakin Engineering Corp. v. BD. OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF SUMMIT (N.J. 1952)
Closterman v. Tp. of Cranford (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952)
Struyk v. Samuel Braen's Sons (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
Campbell v. Hillsdale (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
Dolan v. DeCapua (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
Cassinari v. City of Union City (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1949)
Concord Garden Apartments v. Board of Adjustment (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1949)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*74 Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the careful and comprehensive opinion of Mr. Justice Heher in the Supreme Court, ubi supra.

However, one irregularity in practice should not pass unnoticed. The case is submitted on briefs, and the brief for the appellant bears the signatures of two members of the bar as “of counsel” though one of them is not a counselor-at-law. If his signature had been the only one, the brief would have been rejected, pursuant to well settled rules. Duysters v. Crawford, 69 N. J. L. 229; Leaver v. Kilmer, 54 Atl. Rep. 817; reversed on other grounds, 71 N. J. L. 291; Moore v. Bradley Beach, 87 Id. 391, 395; Gadek v. Kugler, 6 N. J. Mis. R. 471; 141 Atl. Rep. 561; Hirsch v. DePuy, 11 N. J. Mis. R. 500; 166 Atl. Rep. 720. It has been considered, however, as the brief of the other signer, who is a counselor-at-law.

For affirmance —The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 13.

For reversal —None.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.