Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Summer Cottagers' Ass'n of Cape May v. City of Cape Maygreen2 sentences2005The former are ultra vires in the primary sense and void; the latter, ultra vires only in a secondary sense which does not preclude ratification or the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice. [ 19 N.J. at 504 , 117 A.2d 585 ; see also Gruber, supra, 39 N.J. at 14-15 , 186 A.2d 489 .] In Summer Cottagers’, the plaintiff-appellants were seeking a judgment to declare a conveyance of property by a local governing body null and void for noncompliance with a statute. 19 N.J. at 497-98 , 117 A.2d 585 . 2005The former are ultra vires in the primary sense and void; the latter, ultra vires only in a secondary sense which does not preclude ratification or the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice. [ 19 N.J. at 504 , 117 A.2d 585 ; see also Gruber, supra, 39 N.J. at 14-15 , 186 A.2d 489 .] In Summer Cottagers’, the plaintiff-appellants were seeking a judgment to declare a conveyance of property by a local governing body null and void for noncompliance with a statute. 19 N.J. at 497-98 , 117 A.2d 585 . | 2 | 8 |
Gruber v. Mayor and Tp. Committee of Raritan Tp.green2 sentences2023The former 7 are ultra vires in the primary sense and void; the latter, ultra vires only in a secondary sense which does not preclude ratification or the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice. [Middletown, 162 N.J. at 368 (quoting Skulski, 68 N.J. at 198 ).] In Gruber, for example, this Court considered a municipality’s adoption of an ordinance that rezoned a residential district for light industry. 39 N.J. at 8 . 2005The former are ultra vires in the primary sense and void; the latter, ultra vires only in a secondary sense which does not preclude ratification or the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice. [ 19 N.J. at 504 , 117 A.2d 585 ; see also Gruber, supra, 39 N.J. at 14-15 , 186 A.2d 489 .] In Summer Cottagers’, the plaintiff-appellants were seeking a judgment to declare a conveyance of property by a local governing body null and void for noncompliance with a statute. 19 N.J. at 497-98 , 117 A.2d 585 . | 2 | 5 |
Bridge v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2025Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 233 N.J. 1999Board of Adjust., 233 N.J.Super. 587, 597 , 559 A. 2d 855 (App.Div. 1989); Juliano v. Borough of Ocean Gate, 214 N.J.Super. 503, 508 , 520 A. 2d 418 (Law Div.1986). | 1 | 2 |
Wood v. Borough of Wildwood Crestgreen2 sentences1999See also Wood v. Borough of Wildwood Crest, 319 N.J.Super. 650, 657 , 726 A. 2d 310 (App.Div.1999); Independence One Mortgage Corp. v. Gillespie, 289 N.J.Super. 91, 94 , 672 A. 2d 1279 (App.Div.1996). 1999See also Wood v. Borough of Wildwood Crest, 319 N.J.Super. 650, 657 , 726 A. 2d 310 (App.Div.1999); Independence One Mortgage Corp. v. Gillespie, 289 N.J.Super. 91, 94 , 672 A. 2d 1279 (App.Div.1996). | 1 | 1 |
East Orange v. BD. OF WATER COM'RS OF EAST ORANGEgreen1 sentence1977Summer Cottagers' Ass'n of Cape May v. City of Cape May, supra, 19 N.J. at 504 ; East Orange v. East Orange Bd. of Water Comm'rs, 73 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Bd. of Adjust., Bor. of Eatontowngreen1 sentence1975Comm., 39 N.J. 1, 13 (1962); Hill v. Eatontown Bd. of Adjust., 122 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Marini v. Borough of Wanaquegreen1 sentence1972Further, in Jantausch , Judge Weintraub adverted to Marini v. Borough of Wanaque, 37 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Jersey City Supply Co. v. Mayor of Jersey Citygreen1 sentence1968Compare Jersey City Supply Co. v. Jersey City, 71 N.J.L. 631 ( E. & A. 1905); Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long Beach, 210 Cal. 348 , 291 P. 839 , 71 A.L.R. 161 ( Sup. Ct. 1930); Continental Construction Co. v. City of Lawrence, 297 Mass. 513 , 9 N.E. 2 d 550 ( Sup. Jud. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Middletown Township Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n Local No. 124 v. Township of Middletown
green
2 sentences2025The former are ultra vires in the primary sense and void; the latter, ultra vires only in a secondary sense which does not preclude ratification or the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice. [Middletown, 162 N.J. at 368 (quoting Skulski, 68 N.J. at 198 ).] [Id. at 100-01.] Here, plaintiffs claim that, when purchasing the property in 2016, they reasonably relied on the assertions of Toms River's Disaster Recovery Ombudsman, Trevor Newman, that the home did not need to be elevated. 2023The former 7 are ultra vires in the primary sense and void; the latter, ultra vires only in a secondary sense which does not preclude ratification or the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice. [Middletown, 162 N.J. at 368 (quoting Skulski, 68 N.J. at 198 ).] In Gruber, for example, this Court considered a municipality’s adoption of an ordinance that rezoned a residential district for light industry. 39 N.J. at 8 . | 4 | 2001–2025 |
Skulski v. Nolan
green
2 sentences2025The former are ultra vires in the primary sense and void; the latter, ultra vires only in a secondary sense which does not preclude ratification or the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice. [Middletown, 162 N.J. at 368 (quoting Skulski, 68 N.J. at 198 ).] [Id. at 100-01.] Here, plaintiffs claim that, when purchasing the property in 2016, they reasonably relied on the assertions of Toms River's Disaster Recovery Ombudsman, Trevor Newman, that the home did not need to be elevated. 2023The former 7 are ultra vires in the primary sense and void; the latter, ultra vires only in a secondary sense which does not preclude ratification or the application of the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice. [Middletown, 162 N.J. at 368 (quoting Skulski, 68 N.J. at 198 ).] In Gruber, for example, this Court considered a municipality’s adoption of an ordinance that rezoned a residential district for light industry. 39 N.J. at 8 . | 4 | 2001–2025 |
Keenan v. BD. OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF ESSEX CTY
green
2 sentences2008Freeholders Bd., 106 N.J.Super. 312, 316 , 255 A. 2d 786 (App.Div.1969), "[a] governmental body cannot ordinarily be estopped by prior acts that were in violation of law." Where the act in question is utterly beyond the jurisdiction of a public entity and is ultra vires, the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice has no direct application. [ Cipriano v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 151 N.J.Super. 86, 91 , 376 A. 2d 571 (App. Div.1977) (some citations omitted).] This approach has remained unchanged. 2008Freeholders Bd., 106 N.J.Super. 312, 316 , 255 A. 2d 786 (App.Div.1969), "[a] governmental body cannot ordinarily be estopped by prior acts that were in violation of law." Where the act in question is utterly beyond the jurisdiction of a public entity and is ultra vires, the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice has no direct application. [ Cipriano v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 151 N.J.Super. 86, 91 , 376 A. 2d 571 (App. Div.1977) (some citations omitted).] This approach has remained unchanged. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Cipriano v. Department of Civil Service
green
2 sentences2008Freeholders Bd., 106 N.J.Super. 312, 316 , 255 A. 2d 786 (App.Div.1969), "[a] governmental body cannot ordinarily be estopped by prior acts that were in violation of law." Where the act in question is utterly beyond the jurisdiction of a public entity and is ultra vires, the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice has no direct application. [ Cipriano v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 151 N.J.Super. 86, 91 , 376 A. 2d 571 (App. Div.1977) (some citations omitted).] This approach has remained unchanged. 2008Freeholders Bd., 106 N.J.Super. 312, 316 , 255 A. 2d 786 (App.Div.1969), "[a] governmental body cannot ordinarily be estopped by prior acts that were in violation of law." Where the act in question is utterly beyond the jurisdiction of a public entity and is ultra vires, the doctrine of estoppel in the interest of equity and essential justice has no direct application. [ Cipriano v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 151 N.J.Super. 86, 91 , 376 A. 2d 571 (App. Div.1977) (some citations omitted).] This approach has remained unchanged. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Scardigli v. Borough of Haddonfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences2000Ibid; see also Summer Cottagers’ Ass’n of Cape May, supra, 19 N.J. at 506 , 117 A.2d 585 (holding that “the power of sale was within the municipality’s essential jurisdiction” even if municipality failed to serve proper public notice as required by statute); Jantausch v. Borough of Verona, 41 N.J.Super. 89, 94-95 , 124 A.2d 14 (Law Div.1956), aff'd, 24 N.J. 326 , 131 A.2d 881 (1957) (holding that good faith granting of building permit was within authority of municipal official even if official erroneously interpreted municipal ordinances); Scardigli v. Borough of Haddonfield Zoning Bd. of Adju 2000Ibid; see also Summer Cottagers’ Ass’n of Cape May, supra, 19 N.J. at 506 , 117 A.2d 585 (holding that “the power of sale was within the municipality’s essential jurisdiction” even if municipality failed to serve proper public notice as required by statute); Jantausch v. Borough of Verona, 41 N.J.Super. 89, 94-95 , 124 A.2d 14 (Law Div.1956), aff'd, 24 N.J. 326 , 131 A.2d 881 (1957) (holding that good faith granting of building permit was within authority of municipal official even if official erroneously interpreted municipal ordinances); Scardigli v. Borough of Haddonfield Zoning Bd. of Adju | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jantausch v. Borough of Verona
green
2 sentences2000Ibid; see also Summer Cottagers’ Ass’n of Cape May, supra, 19 N.J. at 506 , 117 A.2d 585 (holding that “the power of sale was within the municipality’s essential jurisdiction” even if municipality failed to serve proper public notice as required by statute); Jantausch v. Borough of Verona, 41 N.J.Super. 89, 94-95 , 124 A.2d 14 (Law Div.1956), aff'd, 24 N.J. 326 , 131 A.2d 881 (1957) (holding that good faith granting of building permit was within authority of municipal official even if official erroneously interpreted municipal ordinances); Scardigli v. Borough of Haddonfield Zoning Bd. of Adju 2000Ibid; see also Summer Cottagers’ Ass’n of Cape May, supra, 19 N.J. at 506 , 117 A.2d 585 (holding that “the power of sale was within the municipality’s essential jurisdiction” even if municipality failed to serve proper public notice as required by statute); Jantausch v. Borough of Verona, 41 N.J.Super. 89, 94-95 , 124 A.2d 14 (Law Div.1956), aff'd, 24 N.J. 326 , 131 A.2d 881 (1957) (holding that good faith granting of building permit was within authority of municipal official even if official erroneously interpreted municipal ordinances); Scardigli v. Borough of Haddonfield Zoning Bd. of Adju | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jantausch v. Borough of Verona
green
2 sentences2000Ibid; see also Summer Cottagers’ Ass’n of Cape May, supra, 19 N.J. at 506 , 117 A.2d 585 (holding that “the power of sale was within the municipality’s essential jurisdiction” even if municipality failed to serve proper public notice as required by statute); Jantausch v. Borough of Verona, 41 N.J.Super. 89, 94-95 , 124 A.2d 14 (Law Div.1956), aff'd, 24 N.J. 326 , 131 A.2d 881 (1957) (holding that good faith granting of building permit was within authority of municipal official even if official erroneously interpreted municipal ordinances); Scardigli v. Borough of Haddonfield Zoning Bd. of Adju 2000Ibid; see also Summer Cottagers’ Ass’n of Cape May, supra, 19 N.J. at 506 , 117 A.2d 585 (holding that “the power of sale was within the municipality’s essential jurisdiction” even if municipality failed to serve proper public notice as required by statute); Jantausch v. Borough of Verona, 41 N.J.Super. 89, 94-95 , 124 A.2d 14 (Law Div.1956), aff'd, 24 N.J. 326 , 131 A.2d 881 (1957) (holding that good faith granting of building permit was within authority of municipal official even if official erroneously interpreted municipal ordinances); Scardigli v. Borough of Haddonfield Zoning Bd. of Adju | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Independence One Mortgage Corp. v. Gillespie
green
2 sentences1999See also Wood v. Borough of Wildwood Crest, 319 N.J.Super. 650, 657 , 726 A. 2d 310 (App.Div.1999); Independence One Mortgage Corp. v. Gillespie, 289 N.J.Super. 91, 94 , 672 A. 2d 1279 (App.Div.1996). 1999See also Wood v. Borough of Wildwood Crest, 319 N.J.Super. 650, 657 , 726 A. 2d 310 (App.Div.1999); Independence One Mortgage Corp. v. Gillespie, 289 N.J.Super. 91, 94 , 672 A. 2d 1279 (App.Div.1996). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Juliano v. Ocean Gate Bor.
neutral
2 sentences1999Board of Adjust., 233 N.J.Super. 587, 597 , 559 A. 2d 855 (App.Div. 1989); Juliano v. Borough of Ocean Gate, 214 N.J.Super. 503, 508 , 520 A. 2d 418 (Law Div.1986). 1999Board of Adjust., 233 N.J.Super. 587, 597 , 559 A. 2d 855 (App.Div. 1989); Juliano v. Borough of Ocean Gate, 214 N.J.Super. 503, 508 , 520 A. 2d 418 (Law Div.1986). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Continental Construction Co. v. City of Lawrence
green
1 sentence1968Compare Jersey City Supply Co. v. Jersey City, 71 N.J.L. 631 ( E. & A. 1905); Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long Beach, 210 Cal. 348 , 291 P. 839 , 71 A.L.R. 161 ( Sup. Ct. 1930); Continental Construction Co. v. City of Lawrence, 297 Mass. 513 , 9 N.E. 2 d 550 ( Sup. Jud. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long Beach
green
2 sentences1968Compare Jersey City Supply Co. v. Jersey City, 71 N.J.L. 631 ( E. & A. 1905); Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long Beach, 210 Cal. 348 , 291 P. 839 , 71 A.L.R. 161 ( Sup. Ct. 1930); Continental Construction Co. v. City of Lawrence, 297 Mass. 513 , 9 N.E. 2 d 550 ( Sup. Jud. 1968Compare Jersey City Supply Co. v. Jersey City, 71 N.J.L. 631 ( E. & A. 1905); Los Angeles Dredging Co. v. City of Long Beach, 210 Cal. 348 , 291 P. 839 , 71 A.L.R. 161 ( Sup. Ct. 1930); Continental Construction Co. v. City of Lawrence, 297 Mass. 513 , 9 N.E. 2 d 550 ( Sup. Jud. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Johnson v. Hospital Service Plan of NJ
green
1 sentence1962Johnson v. Hospital Service Plan of N.J., 25 N.J. 134 (1957). | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.