First Peoples Bank of New Jersey v. Township of Medford
New Jersey Supreme Court
599 A.2d 1248 (1991)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The sewage system in the Township of Medford (defendant) reached its capacity. The township passed an ordinance to expand the system. The ordinance included a fee structure for landowners to pay for permits to access the expanded capacity. The ordinance also gave the township the unilateral option to repurchase permits that had been purchased but remained unused. The stated policy considerations guiding this option included the public’s health, safety, and welfare, proper cost allocation, and the allowance of moderate growth in the township. Finally, the ordinance stated that the township’s system of allocating permits was subject to the township’s control in consideration of the best interests of the township and its residents. The township sent a letter to all owners of new developments in the township, including the First Peoples Bank of New Jersey (the bank) (plaintiff). The bank decided not to purchase any permits. Once the township sold 1,770 of its planned 1,800 permits, reserving 30 for emergencies, it suspended issuance of any additional permits. At that point, the bank filed permit applications, which were denied. The bank sued the township, claiming that the ordinance was invalid because it lacked sufficient standards to guide the township in deciding whether to repurchase sold permits. The trial court upheld the ordinance. The appellate court affirmed. The bank appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pollock, 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.