Gross v. Township of Ocean

457 A.2d 836, 92 N.J. 539, 1983 N.J. LEXIS 2360
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMarch 30, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 457 A.2d 836 (Gross v. Township of Ocean) 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
Gross v. Township of Ocean, 457 A.2d 836, 92 N.J. 539, 1983 N.J. LEXIS 2360 (N.J. 1983).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In reversing the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion below, 184 N.J.Super. 144, 157 (1982), we emphasize our impression that the defendant municipality acted in the utmost good faith in attempting to solve the perplexing problem of how best to arrange for the removal from the public streets of unregistered, disabled and illegally parked, and abandoned motor vehicles. See N.J.S.A. 39:3-4, N.J.S.A. 39:4-136, and N.J.S.A. 39:4-56.5. *541 Although the question of whether the “negative charge” public bidding device fashioned by Ocean Township is beyond the limits of municipal power is technically moot, inasmuch as the one-year period of the contract for which bids were sought has long since expired, the portentous nature of the problem creates the need for this Court to decide it. See, e.g., In re Boardwalk Regency Corp. Casino License, 90 N.J. 361, 368 (1982). Hence we record our agreement with Judge Antell’s dissenting view.

Furthermore, because Ocean Township’s predicament has attracted similar solutions in other municipalities and because it is a continuing and recurring problem that may not be restricted to the towing situation, we respectfully commend it to the Legislature’s urgent attention. Every municipality in this state would welcome the definitive guidance that can, in the first instance, come only from that body.

Reversed. The cause is remanded to the Law Division for entry there of judgment in favor of plaintiff.

For reversal — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN and GARIBALDI — 7.

For affirmance • — None.

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

Related

Talcott Fromkin v. Freehold Tp.
891 A.2d 690 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2005)
Advance Electric Co., Inc. v. MONTGOMERY TP. BD. OF EDN.
797 A.2d 216 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2002)
Sevell's Auto Body Co. v. New Jersey Highway Authority
703 A.2d 948 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1997)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Lanzaro
658 A.2d 282 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1995)
Holmdel Builders v. Holmdel Tp.
556 A.2d 1236 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1989)
Serkin v. Ocean Tp.
493 A.2d 531 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
457 A.2d 836, 92 N.J. 539, 1983 N.J. LEXIS 2360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gross-v-township-of-ocean-nj-1983.