Cochran v. Planning Board of City of Summit
New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division
87 N.J. Super. 526, 210 A.2d 99 (1965)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
In 1963, the planning board of the city of Summit (the city) (defendant) adopted a comprehensive municipal development plan for the city (the master plan). The master plan permitted Ciba Corporation (Ciba) to expand its parking area and research and office space by rezoning 63 acres of land that was part of the Ciba tract in the A-15 zoning district. The A-15 zoning district was limited to one-family residences. Citizens, taxpayers, and owners of land in Summit (the residents) (plaintiffs) challenged the city’s adoption of the master plan, arguing that the master plan was arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious, unreasonable, and an abuse of the planning board’s discretion. The residents requested the court to declare the master plan null and void because it represented the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. The residents alleged that the adoption of the master plan destroys property values. The residents presented expert testimony supporting the alleged decrease in property values, but none of the residents had yet attempted to sell their property to show the decrease first-hand. The city argued that the residents failed to allege and prove injury to their property and thus their legal questions were premature and did not present justiciable controversies.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Feller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.