Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc. v. Ocean Twp.

157 A.2d 2, 59 N.J. Super. 4
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJanuary 8, 1960
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 157 A.2d 2 (Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc. v. Ocean Twp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc. v. Ocean Twp., 157 A.2d 2, 59 N.J. Super. 4 (N.J. Ct. App. 1960).

Opinion

59 N.J. Super. 4 (1960)
157 A.2d 2

SOCONY MOBIL OIL CO., INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued January 4, 1960.
Decided January 8, 1960.

*5 Before Judges CONFORD, FREUND and HANEMAN.

Mr. S.P. McCord, Jr., argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (Mr. A. Vincent Field and Messrs. Starr, Summerill and Davis, attorneys).

Mr. Sidney Hertz argued the cause for defendant-respondent (Messrs. Stout and O'Hagan, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

The only issue argued on this appeal is the validity of a provision of the zoning ordinance of the Township of Ocean prohibiting the use of property for a gasoline station within 1,500 feet of another previously existing such station. The conclusion of the court on the question stated, in the context of all the facts shown in the record herein, is in the affirmative, for the reasons stated by Judge Knight in disposing of this case in the Law Division. Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. Ocean Twp., 56 N.J. Super. 310 (Law Div. 1959). We need express no view on the objection by the municipality to the admission of the transcript of evidence taken before the Board of Adjustment in the Law Division proceedings since we conclude that the ordinance was valid even in the light of that evidence. We also pass the question as to whether the Board of Adjustment was a necessary party respondent on the appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Davidow v. Bd. of Adj. Tp. of South Brunswick
302 A.2d 136 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1973)
Harvard Ent., Inc. v. Bd. of Adj. of Tp. of Madison
266 A.2d 588 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1970)
Radco, Inc. v. Zoning Commission
27 Conn. Supp. 362 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1967)
Radco, Inc. v. Zoning Commission
238 A.2d 799 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1967)
Berson v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Rocky Hill
26 Conn. Supp. 475 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1967)
Berson v. Zoning Board of Appeals
227 A.2d 258 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1967)
Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
143 So. 2d 58 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Gilman v. Newark
180 A.2d 365 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
Gruber v. Raritan Tp.
172 A.2d 47 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 A.2d 2, 59 N.J. Super. 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/socony-mobil-oil-co-inc-v-ocean-twp-njsuperctappdiv-1960.