The Tax Investment Corp. of N.J. v. Hunziker

Supreme Court of New Jersey

The Tax Investment Corp. of N.J. v. Hunziker

20 A.2d 37, 126 N.J.L. 412, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 165

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMay 17, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 A.2d 37 (The Tax Investment Corp. of N.J. v. Hunziker) 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

The Tax Investment Corp. of N.J. v. Hunziker, 20 A.2d 37, 126 N.J.L. 412, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 165 (N.J. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice Heher on the original application to him, and in the main for the reasons given in his memorandum, printed above. It is stated in the brief for prosecutor that he was mistaken in saying that six hundred properties were sold, and that in fact less than half that number were actually sold. Be this as it may, the reasoning of his opinion is not affected.

Our own examination of the matter satisfies us, first, that substantial injury to' prosecutor has not been shown: second, that certain personal memoranda of witnesses offered in evidence were clearly incompetent: third, that prosecutor has not sustained the burden of proof: fourth, that, as stated in the memorandum, adequate remedial measures are available: and fifth, that in any event no material loss to the city is at all probable.

Allocatur is therefore denied.

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

Per Curiam.

We concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice Heher on the original application to him, and in the main for the reasons given in his memorandum, printed above. It is stated in the brief for prosecutor that he was mistaken in saying that six hundred properties were sold, and that in fact less than half that number were actually sold. Be this as it may, the reasoning of his opinion is not affected.

Our own examination of the matter satisfies us, first, that substantial injury to' prosecutor has not been shown: second, that certain personal memoranda of witnesses offered in evidence were clearly incompetent: third, that prosecutor has not sustained the burden of proof: fourth, that, as stated in the memorandum, adequate remedial measures are available: and fifth, that in any event no material loss to the city is at all probable.

Allocatur is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.2d 37, 126 N.J.L. 412, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-tax-investment-corp-of-nj-v-hunziker-nj-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack