City of Jersey City v. State Water Policy Commission

Supreme Court of New Jersey

City of Jersey City v. State Water Policy Commission

180 A. 627, 13 N.J. Misc. 504, 1935 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 276

DecidedJune 25, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A. 627 (City of Jersey City v. State Water Policy Commission) 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

City of Jersey City v. State Water Policy Commission, 180 A. 627, 13 N.J. Misc. 504, 1935 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 276 (N.J. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Bodine, J.

'This is a timely application to review by certiorari the validity of a permit issued by the state water policy commission for the erection of a dam in the Bockaway river, twenty-four miles above prosecutor’s water supply. The property when the lake fills will be used for bathing and bungalow sites. Prosecutor’s interest in safeguarding the health of its people is great. Whether the state water policjr commission had power to pass upon the questions of diversion and pollution they did so. The testimony is in conflict. Failure by the city to move in the matter might result in grave injury, even if abatement of the diversion or pollution might subsequently be obtained. FTot only are debatable questions of fact presented, but also questions of law. The mere circumstances that defendant may be embarrassed in the use of its lands seems no reason to deny allocatur.

The writ may issue.

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

Bodine, J.

'This is a timely application to review by certiorari the validity of a permit issued by the state water policy commission for the erection of a dam in the Bockaway river, twenty-four miles above prosecutor’s water supply. The property when the lake fills will be used for bathing and bungalow sites. Prosecutor’s interest in safeguarding the health of its people is great. Whether the state water policjr commission had power to pass upon the questions of diversion and pollution they did so. The testimony is in conflict. Failure by the city to move in the matter might result in grave injury, even if abatement of the diversion or pollution might subsequently be obtained. FTot only are debatable questions of fact presented, but also questions of law. The mere circumstances that defendant may be embarrassed in the use of its lands seems no reason to deny allocatur.

The writ may issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A. 627, 13 N.J. Misc. 504, 1935 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-jersey-city-v-state-water-policy-commission-nj-1935.