From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Koplin v. Village of South Orange

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 4, 1929
144 A. 588 (N.J. 1929)

Summary

In Koplin v. South Orange, 6 N.J. Mis. R. 489; 142 Atl. Rep. 235, the relator had obtained, on March 5th, 1927, a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding the building inspector and the Village of South Orange to issue her a building permit.

Summary of this case from Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Township of Mount Holly

Opinion

Argued October 25, 1928 —

Decided February 4, 1929.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 6 N.J. Mis. R. 489.

For the appellant, Feit Feit.

For the respondent, Riker Riker.


The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Koplin v. Village of South Orange

Court of Errors and Appeals
Feb 4, 1929
144 A. 588 (N.J. 1929)

In Koplin v. South Orange, 6 N.J. Mis. R. 489; 142 Atl. Rep. 235, the relator had obtained, on March 5th, 1927, a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding the building inspector and the Village of South Orange to issue her a building permit.

Summary of this case from Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Township of Mount Holly
Case details for

Koplin v. Village of South Orange

Case Details

Full title:REBECCA KOPLIN, APPELLANT, v. VILLAGE OF SOUTH ORANGE ET AL., RESPONDENTS

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Feb 4, 1929

Citations

144 A. 588 (N.J. 1929)
105 N.J.L. 492

Citing Cases

Steinberg v. Board of Adjustment, c

The decision of the Supreme Court was rendered on May 1st, 1928; subsequent to the adoption of the zoning…

Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Township of Mount Holly

" In Koplin v. South Orange, 6 N.J. Mis. R. 489; 142 Atl. Rep. 235, the relator had obtained, on March 5th,…