Rutgers v. Piluso
New Jersey Supreme Court
286 A.2d 697, 60 N.J. 142 (1972)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
Rutgers University (plaintiff) was once a private college located in New Jersey. In 1945, the state legislature entered into a contract with Rutgers in which Rutgers provided higher education to New Jersey citizens in exchange for state funds. Under this arrangement, the Rutgers Board of Trustees, a private board, governed the university. In 1956, by an act of the state legislature, Rutgers became a purely public university. Rutgers had a campus in Piscataway Township, New Jersey, where the university owned significant vacant land. Rutgers sought to build housing facilities for married students on Rutgers’ campus in Piscataway. However, a Piscataway zoning ordinance limited housing facilities for married students to no more than 500 units. The purpose of this ordinance, which did not limit housing for unmarried students, was to prevent the growth of families with children so that Piscataway would not be required to build a new elementary school to accommodate the children. Due to significant student growth, Rutgers sought a variance from the township’s Board of Adjustment (the board) (defendant), which was denied. Rutgers then filed a lawsuit against the board, arguing that because Rutgers was an instrumentality of the state, Rutgers was not subject to local zoning ordinances. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Rutgers, and the board appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hall, 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.