Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee of the Township of Manalapan
- Decided
- June 6, 1995
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
Cited 2,534 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a requirement of being substantially consistent with a master plan does not mean one hundred percent consistency — Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America (1995)
- holding that a "trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference" — Porreca v. City of Millville (2011)
- holding that "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference" — Div. of Youth & Fam. Serv. v. Ar (2011)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
The opinion of the Court was delivered by COLEMAN, J.
This appeal requires us to determine whether two amendments to the Township of Manalapan’s (Township) zoning ordinance that exclude Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (Home Depot) from Manalapan’s C-1 regional commercial shopping-center district are substantially consistent with the Township’s Master Plan (Master Plan). A majority in the Appellate Division, in an opinion published at 272 N.J.Super. 1, 639 A.2d 318 (App.Div.1994), held the amendments not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, and therefore substantially consistent with the Master Plan. We agree and affirm.
[*372] I A.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee of the Township of Manalapan, 658 A.2d 1230 (1995)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.