Township of Tewksbury v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services (N.J. 2010)
- Howell Township v. Monmouth County Board of Taxation (New Jersey Tax Court 1999)
- Roth v. Rutherford Rent Board (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989)
- Great Adventure, Inc. v. Director (New Jersey Tax Court 1984)
- Michael A. Ursitti v. James H. Wilson (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
- Seals v. County of Morris (N.J. 2012)
- City of Newark v. City of Clifton (New Jersey Tax Court 1996)
- Kim Real Estate Ent. v. North Bergen Tp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987)
- Howell Tp. v. Manasquan River Regional Sewerage Authority (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1987)
- Burger King Corp. v. Director (New Jersey Tax Court 1987)
- Village of Ridgewood v. Bolger Foundation (N.J. 1986)
- Village of Ridgewood v. Bolger Foundation (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)
- Bristol-Myers Co. v. Taxation Division Director (New Jersey Tax Court 1981)
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
TOWNSHIP OF TEWKSBURY, APPELLANT,
v.
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY, RESPONDENTS.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Mr. Sheldon A. Weiss argued the cause for appellant.
Mr. Robert O. Brokaw argued the cause for respondent Jersey Central Power & Light Company.
Mr. Howard T. Rosen argued the cause for respondent Public Service Electric & Gas Company (Messrs. Rosen, Gelman & Weiss, attorneys; Mr. Rosen and Mr. Sidney D. Weiss, of counsel; Mr. William J. Balcerski, on the brief).
Mr. Thomas J. Cafferty submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Township of Franklin (Messrs. Seiffert, Frisch, McGimpsey & Cafferty, attorneys).
Mr. John R. Miller submitted a letter brief on behalf of amicus curiae Township of Chatham.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 159 N.J. Super. 44.
SULLIVAN and PASHMAN, JJ., dissenting:
We would reverse the judgment below substantially for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Larner in the Appellate Division, reported at 159 N.J. Super. 44, 52.
*399 For affirmance Chief Justice HUGHES and Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER and HANDLER 4.
For reversal Justices SULLIVAN and PASHMAN 2.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.