Taxi's, Inc. v. Borough of East Rutherford, 395 A.2d 912 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Taxi's, Inc. v. Borough of East Rutherford, 395 A.2d 912 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Automatic Merchandising Council v. Twp. of Edison, 506 A.2d 352 (N.J. 1986)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
TAXI'S, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
BOROUGH OF EAST RUTHERFORD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division.
Dec 7, 1978.
Published opinion
395 A.2d 912
1978 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1170
Judges Lynch, Crane and Horn.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

[*161] Before Judges LYNCH, CRANE and HORN.

Mr. Alfred A. Porro, Jr., attorney for appellant (Mr. Richard Macaluso on the brief).

Mr. Thomas J. Barrett, attorney for respondent (no brief was filed on behalf of respondent).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment under review is affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Follender, reported at 149 N.J. Super. 294 (Law Div. 1977). We also note the recent legislative enactment, N.J.S.A. 48-16-2, which states in pertinent part:

* * * No municipality located in a county of the first class with a population of less than 20,000 persons shall enact an ordinance establishing fees or other charges in excess of $50.00 for the right to operate an autocab. The provisions of any existing ordinance establishing fees or other charges in excess of this amount for each cab operated are null and void and any excess fee or charge shall be returned to the owner of the autocab. [Amended by L. 1977, c. 218, § 1, eff. Sept. 13, 1977]

This appears to be applicable to defendant borough.