Letz and Katz, Inc. v. Ackerman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Letz and Katz, Inc. v. Ackerman

135 A. 667, 5 N.J. Misc. 169, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 336

DecidedJanuary 25, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A. 667 (Letz and Katz, Inc. v. Ackerman) 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

Letz and Katz, Inc. v. Ackerman, 135 A. 667, 5 N.J. Misc. 169, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 336 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relator, wishing to install a gasoline station at the southerly corner of Bloomfield and Paulison avenues, in Passaic, [170]*170finds a zoning ordinance in the way, and asks a writ to override it.

The application for building permit was made in June, 1926, at which time the Board of Zoning Adjustment act was in force. Pamph. L. 1926, p. 526. On the refusal of a permit, relator appealed to the board of zoning adjustment, which in turn denied the permit, with some intimation that the scheme involved a dangerous fire hazard.

In this posture of affairs, and in view of the statute, the decision of the board of zoning appeals stands until reversed or set aside on a judicial review. Chancellor Development Co. v. Senior, 4 N. J. Mis. R. 633.

The present rule to show cause will therefore be discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

Relator, wishing to install a gasoline station at the southerly corner of Bloomfield and Paulison avenues, in Passaic, [170]*170finds a zoning ordinance in the way, and asks a writ to override it.

The application for building permit was made in June, 1926, at which time the Board of Zoning Adjustment act was in force. Pamph. L. 1926, p. 526. On the refusal of a permit, relator appealed to the board of zoning adjustment, which in turn denied the permit, with some intimation that the scheme involved a dangerous fire hazard.

In this posture of affairs, and in view of the statute, the decision of the board of zoning appeals stands until reversed or set aside on a judicial review. Chancellor Development Co. v. Senior, 4 N. J. Mis. R. 633.

The present rule to show cause will therefore be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A. 667, 5 N.J. Misc. 169, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/letz-and-katz-inc-v-ackerman-nj-1927.