56 N.J. Super. 480 - Nolan v. Witkowski’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2006
15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Handlon v. Town of Belleville · Moon v. Mayor · 51 N.J. Super. 368 - Edelstein v. Asbury Park · Davaillon v. City of Elizabeth · City of Jersey City v. Department of Civil Service
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs cite Mullin v. Ringle, 27 N.J. 250 , 142 A.2d 216 (1958), and Hamill v. City of Clifton, 10 N.J. Misc. 843 , 160 A. 882 (Sup.Ct.1932), for the proposition that the ordinance need not fix the number of officers. The question is not discussed in the opinion in the Mullin case. Plaintiffs assert that at the oral argument of the Mullin case in the Supreme Court the point was raised by counsel, although it had not been raised below, and that thereafter counsel wrote the Supreme Court supplementing their oral discussion of the point. Since the question is not mentioned in the Mullin opinion we may assume that the Supreme Court elected not to pass upon it. In any event, we may not accept the silence of the Mullin opinion as a decision in favor of the plaintiffs. In the Hamill case the appointment of firemen was attacked because the ordinance under which they were appointed “does not fix the number of firemen.” Strangely enough, even though, as we have shown supra, the Keegan case was being cited and followed in other jurisdictions, it is not mentioned in Hamill . Plainly it was not brought to the attention of the court, tor the court upheld the appointments upon the authority of two cases which had not dealt with the subject at all-namely, Anderson v. [Township of] Weehawken, 97 N.J.L. 371 , 118 A. 208 (Sup.Ct.1922), and Green v. City of Cape May, 41 N.J.L. 45 (Sup.Ct.1879). The Anderson ease held that since the firemen there involved were appointed by resolution “the pos”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The salutary purposes of the provisions which compel the use of an ordinance are defeated if the public is not informed of at least the approximate salary attached to each office and the maximum number of officers who will be in receipt thereof. An ordinance which does not tell the public these things does not comply with the statutes, for then the public is not informed of the increase of the financial burden of local government. [Id. at 496, 153 A.2d 745 (quotation omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The governing body of every municipality may make, amend, repeal and enforce ordinances to [prescribe and define, except as otherwise provided by law, the duties and terms of office or employment, of all officers and employees; and to provide for the employment and compensation of such officials and employees, in addition to those provided for by statute, as may be deemed necessary for the efficient conduct of the affairs of the municipality____ [N.J.S.A. 40:48-1.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.