In re Application of Freygang
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- In re Application of McCabe (N.J. 1980)
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (N.J. 2010)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Township of Greenwich (New Jersey Tax Court 2004)
- New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. Berman (New Jersey Tax Court 1991)
- Newark Superior Officers Ass'n v. City of Newark (N.J. 1985)
- NJ State League of Municipalities v. Kimmelman (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1984)
- Paul Kimball Hospital, Inc. v. Brick Township Hospital, Inc. (N.J. 1981)
- Mahwah Township v. Bergen County (New Jersey Tax Court 1981)
- Kenney v. East Brunswick Tp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)
- Smith v. CITY OF NEWARK (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974)
- Blair v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1973)
- NJ Sports & Exposition Auth. v. McCrane (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971)
- In re Application of Lamb (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1961)
- In re Application of Barbara Eames, Etc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025)
- Township of Mahwah v. Bergen County Board of Taxation (N.J. 1985)
- Newark Superior Officers Ass'n v. Newark (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1982)
- Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Caffiero (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)
- Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. v. Glaser (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
- Trainor v. City of Newark (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
- Trainor v. City of Newark (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1975)
- Inganamort v. Borough of Fort Lee (N.J. 1973)
- Mason v. CITY OF PATERSON (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1972)
- Meadowlands Reg. Dev. Agency v. State (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1970)
- Miele v. McGuire (N.J. 1960)
- Two Guys From Harrison, Inc. v. Furman (N.J. 1960)
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
These proceedings raised the sole question whether the statute was duly passed by the Legislature or otherwise made effective by law in the manner required by the Constitution. The essential premise of the appellants’ attack is that the act was a special law within Art. IY, Sec. YII, pa/r. 10 of the Constitution. We agree with the Appellate Division that the nomenclature adopted by the Legislature is not conclusive or decisive, and that the operative provisions of the act bring it within the category of a general law. It is not disputed that the mechanics of enactment pertinent to general laws were fully met. These views conclude the judicial inquiry permitted under N. J. 8. A. 1:7-l and 4, and hence dispose of the present litigation. Eor these reasons, the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Heiier, Wachenebld, Burling, Erancis and Proctor — 6.
For reversal — Hone.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.