Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

107 N.J. Super. 77

State v. Archer

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · decided 1969-09-24

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 2017

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[p]articipation by the Department in the Federal flood control program via this act is fully warranted.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 451 N.J. Super. 214 - STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. NORTH BEACH 1003,LLC,STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. SHANIN SPECTER, ETALSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. THOMAS R. KLINESTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. ROBERT S. HEKEMIAN,ET AL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. RICHARD CAROLAN, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. JEANETTE F.FRANKENBERGSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. BEVERLY T. CAMMARANO QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUSTSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. BARBARA J. WELDONSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. COLLEEN M. ROWE, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. KEVIN KLINGERT, ETAL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. PATRICIA ROBERTSTRUST STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. DAVID CASTELBLANCO,ET AL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. RICHARD MALOUF, ETAL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. FREDERICK SMITH, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. MICHAEL VANKRALINGENSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. DENNIS LA PLANTE, ETAL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. COURTNEY M. ALESSO,ET AL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. MINALKUMAR A. PATELLIVING TRUST STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. NEIL KAHANOVITZ, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. JILL P. GILESREVOCABLE TRUSTNINA RITTER VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. RAYMOND BRAUN, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. THOMAS BUCKLEY, ETAL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. GERARD LOSURDO, ETAL. (L-3067-15,L-3071-15, L-3077-15, L-3066-15,L-3069-15,L-2919-15, L-3289-15, L-3286-15, L-3420-15,L-3410-15, L-3319-15, L-3287-15, L-3285-15, L-3438-15,L-0442-16, L-0444-16, L-0443-16, L-3206-15, L-3205-15,L-3288-15,L-2949-15, L-3204-15, L-3292-15, L-3275-15, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)

“for the purposes of hurricane and shore protection.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 451 N.J. Super. 214 - STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. NORTH BEACH 1003,LLC,STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. SHANIN SPECTER, ETALSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. THOMAS R. KLINESTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. ROBERT S. HEKEMIAN,ET AL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. RICHARD CAROLAN, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. JEANETTE F.FRANKENBERGSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. BEVERLY T. CAMMARANO QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUSTSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. BARBARA J. WELDONSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. COLLEEN M. ROWE, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. KEVIN KLINGERT, ETAL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. PATRICIA ROBERTSTRUST STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. DAVID CASTELBLANCO,ET AL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. RICHARD MALOUF, ETAL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. FREDERICK SMITH, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. MICHAEL VANKRALINGENSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. DENNIS LA PLANTE, ETAL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. COURTNEY M. ALESSO,ET AL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. MINALKUMAR A. PATELLIVING TRUST STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. NEIL KAHANOVITZ, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. JILL P. GILESREVOCABLE TRUSTNINA RITTER VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPSTATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. RAYMOND BRAUN, ETAL.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. THOMAS BUCKLEY, ETAL. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEP VS. GERARD LOSURDO, ETAL. (L-3067-15,L-3071-15, L-3077-15, L-3066-15,L-3069-15,L-2919-15, L-3289-15, L-3286-15, L-3420-15,L-3410-15, L-3319-15, L-3287-15, L-3285-15, L-3438-15,L-0442-16, L-0444-16, L-0443-16, L-3206-15, L-3205-15,L-3288-15,L-2949-15, L-3204-15, L-3292-15, L-3275-15, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1969-09-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1In these consolidated actions the Borough of Union Beach appeals from orders appointing condemnation commissioners entered by the trial court. The complaints in condemnation filed by plaintiff, the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Economic Development for the State of Hew Jersey, allege that the lands in question are being acquired for the purpose of hurricane and shore protection. The program is in connection with the *79Flood Control Act of 1962 enacted by Congress. Under the Federal act, specified projects are undertaken by the Federal Government upon receiving assurance of “local cooperation.” This includes the providing “without cost to the United States, all lands, easements, and rights of way necessary for construction of the project.”

¶2In conjunction with a Federal project for beach erosion control and hurricane protection for Karitan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay, the State, through the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, filed the instant suits to acquire lands in defendant Borough alleged to be required “for the purposes of hurricane and shore protection.” The suits were brought under N. J. S. A. 12:3-64 which authorizes the Department to condemn lands for the improvement or development of waterways, streams, rivers, creeks, or waterfront or oceanfront property.

¶3 Appellant challenges the right of the Department to bring condemnation proceedings for the purposes of hurricane and shore protection on the grounds that there is no statutory authorization presently existing for such purposes. It is also contended that the taking in question are not for public use since the control program is for the benefit only of those municipalities participating in the program.

¶4We have no doubt of the power of the Department under the statute in question to maintain these condemnation proceedings. The statute is general legislation for the public benefit and is to be read broadly so as to permit the Department to achieve the salutary purposes outlined in the act. Participation by the Department in the Federal flood control program via this act is fully warranted. To the same effect, we conclude that the taking is for a public purpose, even though the program necessarily only affects particular areas.

¶5Affirmed.

/107/njsuper/77 · .json · Public domain