Borough of Edgewater v. Cox

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Borough of Edgewater v. Cox

4 A.2d 527, 122 N.J.L. 291, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 233

DecidedFebruary 20, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.2d 527 (Borough of Edgewater v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borough of Edgewater v. Cox, 4 A.2d 527, 122 N.J.L. 291, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 233 (N.J. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reason expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bodine, rendered on the return to the writ of habeas corpus. 122 N. J. L. 150.

In our view, the case is ruled by Coughlin v. Sullivan, 100 N. J. L. 42. As applied to defendant, Cox, the ordinance constituted an invasion of her fundamental rights. See Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444; 58 S. Ct. 666; 82 L. Ed. 949. The case of Town of Irvington v. Schneider, 120 N. J. L. 460; affirmed, 121 Id. 542, is not in point.

Having thus disposed of the meritorious question, it is unnecessary to pass upon the point made by the named defendant, that, under section 53 of the Habeas Corpus act (Comp. Stat. 1910, p. 2651; R. S. 1937, 2:82-48), prosecutor is without standing to secure a review by certiorari of the order in question.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reason expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Bodine, rendered on the return to the writ of habeas corpus. 122 N. J. L. 150.

In our view, the case is ruled by Coughlin v. Sullivan, 100 N. J. L. 42. As applied to defendant, Cox, the ordinance constituted an invasion of her fundamental rights. See Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444; 58 S. Ct. 666; 82 L. Ed. 949. The case of Town of Irvington v. Schneider, 120 N. J. L. 460; affirmed, 121 Id. 542, is not in point.

Having thus disposed of the meritorious question, it is unnecessary to pass upon the point made by the named defendant, that, under section 53 of the Habeas Corpus act (Comp. Stat. 1910, p. 2651; R. S. 1937, 2:82-48), prosecutor is without standing to secure a review by certiorari of the order in question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.2d 527, 122 N.J.L. 291, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borough-of-edgewater-v-cox-nj-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack