Township of Brick v. Spivak

230 A.2d 503, 49 N.J. 400, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 240
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 12, 1967·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons given in the majority opinion. Appellants’ position depends upon the hypothesis that the Legislature in fact intended that a majority vote for three candidates shall result in the election of the next four candidates as well. We cannot be sure the Legislature so intended. We see no substantial constitutional issue.

No costs.

Eor affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteatjb and Justices Jacobs, Fbancis, Peootoe, Hall, Schettino and Hare- man—7.

For reversal—None.

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

Township of Brick v. Spivak, 230 A.2d 503, 49 N.J. 400, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 240 (N.J. 1967).

230 A.2d 503 (Township of Brick v. Spivak) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carney, Inc. v. City of Trenton
562 A.2d 807 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1988)
Della Serra v. Borough of Mountainside
456 A.2d 129 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1983)
In Re Kraemer
230 A.2d 503 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1967)