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.
11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2013 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Medici v. BPR Co.green2 sentences1994The present application, however, grounds the special reasons standard in undue hardship, i.e., “that the property cannot reasonably be developed with a conforming use.” Id. at 4 n. 1, 17 n. 9, 526 A.2d 109 . 1994The present application, however, grounds the special reasons standard in undue hardship, i.e., “that the property cannot reasonably be developed with a conforming use.” Id. at 4 n. 1, 17 n. 9, 526 A.2d 109 . | 1 | 3 |
Coventry Square, Inc. v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2002In Coventry Square, supra, 138 N.J. at 297 , 650 A. 2d 340 , our Supreme Court determined that the special reasons standard applied to nonpermitted uses is "plainly inappropriate" in the context of conditional-use variances. 2002In Coventry Square, supra, 138 N.J. at 297 , 650 A. 2d 340 , our Supreme Court determined that the special reasons standard applied to nonpermitted uses is "plainly inappropriate" in the context of conditional-use variances. | 1 | 3 |
Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiminggreen2 sentences1999See, e.g., Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiming, 111 N.J. 134, 147 , 543 A. 2d 443 (1988); S.E.W. 1999See, e.g., Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiming, 111 N.J. 134, 147 , 543 A. 2d 443 (1988); S.E.W. | 1 | 1 |
Burton v. Town of Montclairgreen1 sentence1987See, e.g., Black v. Montclair, 34 N.J. 105 (1961) (addition to parochial-school building in residential zone); Burton v. Montclair, 40 N.J. 1 (1963) (private school in residential zones); Yahnel v. Board of Adjustment of Jamesburg, 79 N.J.Super. 509 (App.Div.1963) (telephone-equipment building in residential zone) certif. denied, 41 N.J. 116 ; Kunzler v. Hoffman, 48 N.J. 277 (1966) (private hospital for the *13 emotionally disturbed in residential zone); DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corp. No. 1, 56 N.J. 428 (1970) (public or semi-public low-cost housing project in one-family residenti | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Town of Montclairgreen1 sentence1987See, e.g., Black v. Montclair, 34 N.J. 105 (1961) (addition to parochial-school building in residential zone); Burton v. Montclair, 40 N.J. 1 (1963) (private school in residential zones); Yahnel v. Board of Adjustment of Jamesburg, 79 N.J.Super. 509 (App.Div.1963) (telephone-equipment building in residential zone) certif. denied, 41 N.J. 116 ; Kunzler v. Hoffman, 48 N.J. 277 (1966) (private hospital for the *13 emotionally disturbed in residential zone); DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corp. No. 1, 56 N.J. 428 (1970) (public or semi-public low-cost housing project in one-family residenti | 1 | 1 |
Yahnel v. Bd. of Adjust. of Jamesburggreen1 sentence1987See, e.g., Black v. Montclair, 34 N.J. 105 (1961) (addition to parochial-school building in residential zone); Burton v. Montclair, 40 N.J. 1 (1963) (private school in residential zones); Yahnel v. Board of Adjustment of Jamesburg, 79 N.J.Super. 509 (App.Div.1963) (telephone-equipment building in residential zone) certif. denied, 41 N.J. 116 ; Kunzler v. Hoffman, 48 N.J. 277 (1966) (private hospital for the *13 emotionally disturbed in residential zone); DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corp. No. 1, 56 N.J. 428 (1970) (public or semi-public low-cost housing project in one-family residenti | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrews v. Ocean Twp. Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences1992Board of Adjustment, 30 N.J. 245, 249 , 152 A. 2d 580 (1967) (education of children); DeSimone v. Greater Engelwood Housing Corp., 50 N.J. 428, 440 , 236 A. 2d 138 (1970) (quasi-public housing). 1987I am convinced that the basic concept of use zoning by districts in accordance with a comprehensive plan will consequently, for all practical purposes, disappear and that spot zoning has in effect been given legal blessing. [Id. at 256-57.] 7 The Court’s holding in Andrews v. Ocean Township Bd. of Adjustment, supra, that the special-reasons standard was inherently satisfied by institutional-type uses furthering the general welfare was solidified by a number of subsequent decisions adopting the Andrews rationale. | 2 | 1987–1992 |
Ward v. Scott
green
2 sentences1996Ward v. Scott, 11 N.J. 117, 125-27 , 93 A. 2d 385 (1952) (sharply divided Court reaffirmed dictum in Monmouth Lumber Co. v. Ocean Tp., 9 N.J. 64 , 87 A. 2d 9 (1952), that special reason could but need not be based on undue hardship). 1996Ward v. Scott, 11 N.J. 117, 125-27 , 93 A. 2d 385 (1952) (sharply divided Court reaffirmed dictum in Monmouth Lumber Co. v. Ocean Tp., 9 N.J. 64 , 87 A. 2d 9 (1952), that special reason could but need not be based on undue hardship). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Monmouth Lumber Co. v. Township of Ocean
green
2 sentences1996Ward v. Scott, 11 N.J. 117, 125-27 , 93 A. 2d 385 (1952) (sharply divided Court reaffirmed dictum in Monmouth Lumber Co. v. Ocean Tp., 9 N.J. 64 , 87 A. 2d 9 (1952), that special reason could but need not be based on undue hardship). 1996Ward v. Scott, 11 N.J. 117, 125-27 , 93 A. 2d 385 (1952) (sharply divided Court reaffirmed dictum in Monmouth Lumber Co. v. Ocean Tp., 9 N.J. 64 , 87 A. 2d 9 (1952), that special reason could but need not be based on undue hardship). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Brandon v. Board of Commissioners of Montclair
green
2 sentences1996Our Supreme Court has held unequivocally that the special-reasons requirement may also be satisfied by a showing of undue hardship in the form of economic inutility for permitted uses: Although the Court in Kohl [ v. Fair Lawn, 50 N.J. 268 [ 234 A. 2d 385 ] (1967)] did not expressly acknowledge that proof of undue hardship — i.e., that the property is not reasonably adapted to a conforming use, Brandon v. Montclair [Bd. of Com'rs], [ 124 N.J.L. 135, 149 , 11 A. 2d 304 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd, 125 N.J.L. 367 , 15 A. 2d 598 (E. & A. 1940)] — would also satisfy the requirement of special reasons, we dee 1996Our Supreme Court has held unequivocally that the special-reasons requirement may also be satisfied by a showing of undue hardship in the form of economic inutility for permitted uses: Although the Court in Kohl [ v. Fair Lawn, 50 N.J. 268 [ 234 A. 2d 385 ] (1967)] did not expressly acknowledge that proof of undue hardship — i.e., that the property is not reasonably adapted to a conforming use, Brandon v. Montclair [Bd. of Com'rs], [ 124 N.J.L. 135, 149 , 11 A. 2d 304 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd, 125 N.J.L. 367 , 15 A. 2d 598 (E. & A. 1940)] — would also satisfy the requirement of special reasons, we dee | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Brandon v. Board of Commissioners
green
2 sentences1996Our Supreme Court has held unequivocally that the special-reasons requirement may also be satisfied by a showing of undue hardship in the form of economic inutility for permitted uses: Although the Court in Kohl [ v. Fair Lawn, 50 N.J. 268 [ 234 A. 2d 385 ] (1967)] did not expressly acknowledge that proof of undue hardship — i.e., that the property is not reasonably adapted to a conforming use, Brandon v. Montclair [Bd. of Com'rs], [ 124 N.J.L. 135, 149 , 11 A. 2d 304 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd, 125 N.J.L. 367 , 15 A. 2d 598 (E. & A. 1940)] — would also satisfy the requirement of special reasons, we dee 1996Our Supreme Court has held unequivocally that the special-reasons requirement may also be satisfied by a showing of undue hardship in the form of economic inutility for permitted uses: Although the Court in Kohl [ v. Fair Lawn, 50 N.J. 268 [ 234 A. 2d 385 ] (1967)] did not expressly acknowledge that proof of undue hardship — i.e., that the property is not reasonably adapted to a conforming use, Brandon v. Montclair [Bd. of Com'rs], [ 124 N.J.L. 135, 149 , 11 A. 2d 304 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd, 125 N.J.L. 367 , 15 A. 2d 598 (E. & A. 1940)] — would also satisfy the requirement of special reasons, we dee | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Kohl v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Fair Lawn
green
2 sentences1996Our Supreme Court has held unequivocally that the special-reasons requirement may also be satisfied by a showing of undue hardship in the form of economic inutility for permitted uses: Although the Court in Kohl [ v. Fair Lawn, 50 N.J. 268 [ 234 A. 2d 385 ] (1967)] did not expressly acknowledge that proof of undue hardship — i.e., that the property is not reasonably adapted to a conforming use, Brandon v. Montclair [Bd. of Com'rs], [ 124 N.J.L. 135, 149 , 11 A. 2d 304 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd, 125 N.J.L. 367 , 15 A. 2d 598 (E. & A. 1940)] — would also satisfy the requirement of special reasons, we dee 1996Our Supreme Court has held unequivocally that the special-reasons requirement may also be satisfied by a showing of undue hardship in the form of economic inutility for permitted uses: Although the Court in Kohl [ v. Fair Lawn, 50 N.J. 268 [ 234 A. 2d 385 ] (1967)] did not expressly acknowledge that proof of undue hardship — i.e., that the property is not reasonably adapted to a conforming use, Brandon v. Montclair [Bd. of Com'rs], [ 124 N.J.L. 135, 149 , 11 A. 2d 304 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd, 125 N.J.L. 367 , 15 A. 2d 598 (E. & A. 1940)] — would also satisfy the requirement of special reasons, we dee | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Bollerer v. George & Lucille Elenberger
green
2 sentences1992Board of Adjustment, 30 N.J. 245, 249 , 152 A. 2d 580 (1967) (education of children); DeSimone v. Greater Engelwood Housing Corp., 50 N.J. 428, 440 , 236 A. 2d 138 (1970) (quasi-public housing). 1992Board of Adjustment, 30 N.J. 245, 249 , 152 A. 2d 580 (1967) (education of children); DeSimone v. Greater Engelwood Housing Corp., 50 N.J. 428, 440 , 236 A. 2d 138 (1970) (quasi-public housing). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of Wall
green
2 sentences1992The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the special reasons standard is satisfied as a matter of law by uses which inherently serve the general welfare. [7] See Sica v. Bd. of Adj. of the Tp. of Wall, 127 N.J. 152 , 603 A. 2d 30 (1992) (private head trauma facility); Andrews v. Ocean Tp. 1992The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the special reasons standard is satisfied as a matter of law by uses which inherently serve the general welfare. [7] See Sica v. Bd. of Adj. of the Tp. of Wall, 127 N.J. 152 , 603 A. 2d 30 (1992) (private head trauma facility); Andrews v. Ocean Tp. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Medical Realty v. Bd. of Adjustment
green
1 sentence1989This is so *594 because a balancing process takes place of necessity when deciding the negative criteria standard because only by overall consideration of the proposal will a decision be reached as to whether the variance would have substantial detrimental effect on the public good and the zoning plan and ordinance. [ 228 N.J. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Yahnel v. Board of Adjustment
green
1 sentence1987See, e.g., Black v. Montclair, 34 N.J. 105 (1961) (addition to parochial-school building in residential zone); Burton v. Montclair, 40 N.J. 1 (1963) (private school in residential zones); Yahnel v. Board of Adjustment of Jamesburg, 79 N.J.Super. 509 (App.Div.1963) (telephone-equipment building in residential zone) certif. denied, 41 N.J. 116 ; Kunzler v. Hoffman, 48 N.J. 277 (1966) (private hospital for the *13 emotionally disturbed in residential zone); DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corp. No. 1, 56 N.J. 428 (1970) (public or semi-public low-cost housing project in one-family residenti | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Kunzler v. Hoffman
green
1 sentence1987See, e.g., Black v. Montclair, 34 N.J. 105 (1961) (addition to parochial-school building in residential zone); Burton v. Montclair, 40 N.J. 1 (1963) (private school in residential zones); Yahnel v. Board of Adjustment of Jamesburg, 79 N.J.Super. 509 (App.Div.1963) (telephone-equipment building in residential zone) certif. denied, 41 N.J. 116 ; Kunzler v. Hoffman, 48 N.J. 277 (1966) (private hospital for the *13 emotionally disturbed in residential zone); DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corp. No. 1, 56 N.J. 428 (1970) (public or semi-public low-cost housing project in one-family residenti | 1 | 1987–1987 |
DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corp. No. 1
green
1 sentence1987See, e.g., Black v. Montclair, 34 N.J. 105 (1961) (addition to parochial-school building in residential zone); Burton v. Montclair, 40 N.J. 1 (1963) (private school in residential zones); Yahnel v. Board of Adjustment of Jamesburg, 79 N.J.Super. 509 (App.Div.1963) (telephone-equipment building in residential zone) certif. denied, 41 N.J. 116 ; Kunzler v. Hoffman, 48 N.J. 277 (1966) (private hospital for the *13 emotionally disturbed in residential zone); DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corp. No. 1, 56 N.J. 428 (1970) (public or semi-public low-cost housing project in one-family residenti | 1 | 1987–1987 |