From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Postma

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 20, 1964
196 A.2d 792 (N.J. 1964)

Summary

In Morris v. Postma, 41 N.J. 354, 362 (1964), a judgment requiring issuance of a building permit was not regarded as creating a right of reliance which, if exercised, immunized the owner from a change in the zoning ordinance.

Summary of this case from Hill Homeowners Association v. City of Passaic

Opinion

Argued December 17, 1963 —

Decided January 20, 1964.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Mr. Howard Stern argued the cause for the appellants ( Messrs. Shavick, Thevos, Stern, Schotz Steiger, attorneys).

Mr. Morton Hirschklau argued the cause for the respondents ( Mr. Floyd V. Amoresano, attorney).










The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Sullivan in the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 6.

For reversal — Justice HALL — 1.


Summaries of

Morris v. Postma

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 20, 1964
196 A.2d 792 (N.J. 1964)

In Morris v. Postma, 41 N.J. 354, 362 (1964), a judgment requiring issuance of a building permit was not regarded as creating a right of reliance which, if exercised, immunized the owner from a change in the zoning ordinance.

Summary of this case from Hill Homeowners Association v. City of Passaic
Case details for

Morris v. Postma

Case Details

Full title:HOWARD MORRIS, EDWARD MORRIS AND ROSE MORRIS, PARTNERS, TRADING AS CARICK…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jan 20, 1964

Citations

196 A.2d 792 (N.J. 1964)
196 A.2d 792

Citing Cases

Sandler v. Board of Adjustment of Springfield

in respect of zoning beyond the immunity any other owner of similar property would enjoy were there no prior…

Donadio v. Cunningham

It does not mean to prohibit consumption of food within the confines of a building, but does forbid "a plan…