Cases

159 P.3d 1179 (2007) 213 Or. App. 75 Gary BISACCIO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David L. HART, Defendant-Appellant. 990302656, A129179. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted January 26, 2007. Decided May 23, 2007. *1180 Stuart M. Brown, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. Wit

838 P.2d 1113 (1992) 115 Or. App. 555 In the Matter of James W. Weyeneth, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. James W. WEYENETH, Appellant. 9107-96559; CA A71096. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted February 14, 1992. Decided October 14, 1992. *11

MEMORANDUMMcHUGH, United States District Judge *892This is a putative class action involving wage and hour claims asserted against a Maryland corporation and its individual corporate officers, both of whom reside in Maryland. Plaintiffs are employees who worked for Defendants as delivery associates in Pennsylvania [hereinafter th

718 A.2d 1218 (1998) 315 N.J. Super. 427 The STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of Delaware, and State Street Bank and Trust Company of Connecticut, not in its individual capacity, but solely as Trustee under a Trust Agreement dated April 26, 1994, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD, Defendant-Appellant, and The Colonial Association of Springfi

COLEMAN, J., dissenting. The question presented by this appeal is not whether a variance runs with the land, about which there is no debate. The Appellate Division in this case acknowledged that “use variances are not *441personal to the owner, but run with the land.” Stop & Shop, supra, 315 N.J.Super. at 434, 718 A2d 1218. Rather,

517 P.2d 667 (1973) James A. BEECHER, Appellant, v. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INC., an Illinois Corporation, Respondent. Supreme Court of Oregon. Argued and Submitted October 16, 1973. Decided December 31, 1973. *669 Raul Soto-Seelig, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Paul J. Rask, Portland.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by *520POLLOCK, J. This case requires that we determine whether the changes in a second application for a bulk variance under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c suffice to avoid the bar of res judicata that arises from the judicial reversal of an earlier grant of the variance. The Edison Township Zoning Board

192 N.J. Super. 15 (1983) 468 A.2d 1072 PRIMO IANIERI, AND JANICE IANIERI, HIS WIFE, CLARK W. CONVERY, AND JEAN CONVERY, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS, v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK, AND BARRY M. RAUFF, DEFENDANTS. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Middlesex County. Decided August 4, 1983. *18

BRYSON, J. Plaintiff brought this action to recover for injuries sustained when she fell on the back stairway of property owned by defendants but rented to tenants, Littlefields. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit at the close of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff appeals. *124Plaintiff assigns as error the trial

246 N.J. Super. 362 (1990) 587 A.2d 674 DILLER AND FISHER COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DILLER AND FISHER COMPANY, INCORPORATED T/A PRUDENTIAL DILLER AND FISHER, REALTORS, DILLER AND FISHER OFFICE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, AND WILLIAM J. DILLER, JR., PLAINTIFFS, v. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF STONE HARBOR AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH

103 N.J. Super. 140 (1968) 246 A.2d 738 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, TOWNSHIP OF CHATHAM, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BERNARD WILLIAM GARGIULO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued September 9, 1968. Decided October 3, 1968. *142 Before Judges GAULKIN, COLLESTER and LABRECQUE.

8 N.J. Super. 547 (1950) 73 A.2d 759 RAY C. EDWARDS, PLAINTIFF, v. JEAN B. EDWARDS, DAVID S. EDWARDS, AN INFANT, DOUGLAS B. EDWARDS, AN INFANT, AND DIANE EDWARDS, AN INFANT, DEFENDANTS. Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division. Decided May 25, 1950. *549 Mr. John H. Jobes, attorney for plaintiff. Me

This is an appeal on questions of law. The parties were husband and wife until April, 1947, when Stalma Bowman secured a divorce and custody of their only child. The divorce judgment awarded $9 a week for the support of the child, although no specific request for such support was prayed for in the petition. George Bowman paid nothing on this support order, claiming that he did not know of the order, and further that Stalma Bowman had agreed that, if he did not contest the action

50 N.J. 268 (1967) 234 A.2d 385 LEONARD KOHL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF FAIR LAWN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF FAIR LAWN, NICHOLAS POSTMA, BUILDING INSPECTOR OF THE BOROUGH OF FAIR LAWN, AND FAIR LAWN DAIRIES, INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

88 N.J. 529 (1982) 443 A.2d 1031 JOAN A. NEWBURGH, AS ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM FOR THE HEIRS AT LAW OF MELVIN H. NEWBURGH, DECEASED, AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MELVIN H. NEWBURGH, DECEASED, AND INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LEON ARRIGO, RICHARD ARRIGO, THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DEFENDANTS. The Supreme Court of New Jersey.<

On March 16, 1938, title to property fronting on Route 9 for about 300 feet and lying between the property of the New York, New Haven Hartford Railroad Company on the west and Mud River on the east and located in Essex, Connecticut, stood in the name of Louis Pieretti and Joseph Pieretti, partners under the name of Pieretti Brothers, subject to mortgage to The Central National Bank of Middletown, Connecticut. Louis Pieretti had disappeared and the bank was threatening to foreclose. On that d

Chief Justice RABNER, concurring. By order dated September 8, 2010, the Presiding Judge for Administration of the Appellate Division, the Honorable Edwin H. Stern, was temporarily assigned to the Supreme Court until further order. As a result, he participated in the resolution of this matter and authored the majority opinion. Article VI, Section II, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constituti

50 N.J. Super. 37 (1958) 141 A.2d 84 JULIA LOHMANN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. FREDERICK F. LOHMANN, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Argued March 17, 1958. Decided April 28, 1958. *40 Before Judges PRICE, HANEMAN and SCHETTINO.</