Tubular Service Corp. v. Commissioner of State Highway Department

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Tubular Service Corp. v. Commissioner of State Highway Department

191 A.2d 745, 40 N.J. 331, 1963 N.J. LEXIS 187

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 10, 1963·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division opinion. *332 Tubular Service Corp. v. Com. State Highway Dept., 77 N. J. Super. 556 (App. Div. 1963). We add this qualification. On the record before us we do not feel it can be said with conviction or certainty whether the conduct of plaintiffs trucks in making the turn “necessarily violated” the Motor Vehicle Act “continuously or frequently.” 77 N. J. Super., at p. 561. Such determination is not necessary to disposition of the appeal, and we agree with the basic view of the Appellate Division that it is preferable to predicate affirmance of the trial court’s determination on the ground that the action of the Highway Department in constructing the center highway barrier does not amount to a compensable taking of property.

For affirmance —• Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hane-ga an — 7.

For reversal — Hone.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division opinion. *332 Tubular Service Corp. v. Com. State Highway Dept., 77 N. J. Super. 556 (App. Div. 1963). We add this qualification. On the record before us we do not feel it can be said with conviction or certainty whether the conduct of plaintiffs trucks in making the turn “necessarily violated” the Motor Vehicle Act “continuously or frequently.” 77 N. J. Super., at p. 561. Such determination is not necessary to disposition of the appeal, and we agree with the basic view of the Appellate Division that it is preferable to predicate affirmance of the trial court’s determination on the ground that the action of the Highway Department in constructing the center highway barrier does not amount to a compensable taking of property.

For affirmance —• Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hane-ga an — 7.

For reversal — Hone.

Tubular Service Corp. v. Commissioner of State Highway Department, 191 A.2d 745, 40 N.J. 331, 1963 N.J. LEXIS 187 (N.J. 1963).

Pincite

191 A.2d 745 (Tubular Service Corp. v. Commissioner of State Highway Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related