Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 388 ROUTE 22 READINGTON REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC v. TOWNSHIP OF READINGTON -- rank: 1000

... they enacted an ordinance charging unreasonable beach fees contrary to N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20. That statute provides in relevant part: a. The governing ... and for the use of the bathing and recreation facilities . . . . [N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20(a).] The statute was enacted to implement the public ... Id. at 592 (citing Avon, 61 N.J. at 310). N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20(a) 'amounts to a delegation to a municipality having ... measures violated the 1989 court order, the public trust doctrine, N.J.S.A. 40:61- - 22.20(a), and the NJCRA. Ibid. The record established that ... constituted the imposition of unreasonable beach fees in violation of N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20. Id. at 601. With respect to the plaintiffs' NJCRA claims, we found that N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20's 'statutory mandate that municipalities charge 'reasonable' beach ...

docket:	a1826-18
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2022-02-08
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	114122

2 JOHN E. SUSKO v. BOROUGH OF BELMAR -- rank: 944

... the Borough's obligations under the public trust doctrine and N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20, which was enacted to implement the doctrine. The trial ... hold that when a municipality violates the beach fee statute, N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20, by charging unreasonable beach fees, that violation constitutes the ... to counsel fees under the CRA for that violation of N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20. Plaintiffs did not prove that the Borough's regular ... Because CRA counsel fees are available for the violation of N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20 that plaintiffs proved, we do not reach the separate ... we need not decide whether the public trust doctrine or N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20 apply to parking fees generally. However, we add these ... charge amounted to a beach fee and the town violated N.J.S.A. 40:61- - 22.20, by imposing on beach users an unreasonable increase ...

docket:	a3059-16
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2019-04-22
status:	Published
citation:	458 N.J.Super. 583 206 A.3d 979
Document Size:	62510

3 SECURE HERITAGE, INC., d/b/a ALEXANDERS'S INN; THE ABBEY OF BAYBERRY INN, L.L.C., et al. v. CITY OF CAPE MAY, et al. -- rank: 796

... to their beaches and bathing facilities. See footnote 1 1 N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20. In 1977, pursuant to this statute, the City enacted ... at the same prices; and (3) it is authorized by N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20. Defendants also contend that the motion judge improperly abrogated ... the ban on transferability is contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20 and violates equal protection as guaranteed by the Fourteenth ... the prohibition on transferability violates neither statutory nor constitutional provisions.      N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20, which grants authority to municipalities to charge beach user ... Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. §401 et seq.).                  [ N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20]     Plaintiffs contend that the statutory construction doctrine expressio unius ... issue of whether the ban on transferability runs afoul of N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20, because it violates State and federal principles of ...

docket:	a4574-01
court:	njappellate
decided:	2003-06-24
status:	published
citation:	361 N.J. Super. 281
Document Size:	76529

4 HACKENSACK RIVERKEEPER v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -- rank: 703

... exclusive control' over municipally-owned beaches." Id. at 599 (citing N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20). 4 We held: In contrast to the express legislative ... Legislature spoke clearly regarding municipally-owned beaches when it enacted N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20(a), and municipally-owned property in general, when it ... township . The document is contained in DEP's appendix. 4 N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20(a) (emphasis added), entitled "Municipal control over beaches, etc ...

docket:	a1752-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2015-12-22
status:	published
citation:	443 N.J.Super. 293 128 A.3d 749
Document Size:	63519

5 DANIEL RITTER v. HARBOR COMMISSION OF THE BOROUGH OF ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS -- rank: 608

... fees for the use of the Harbor and its facilities. N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20. Ritter now asserts a right to access his mooring ...

docket:	a2044-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2013-02-01
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	21152

6 BOROUGH OF AVALON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -- rank: 515

... or authority with respect to such lands, property and facilities. [ N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20.] We have previously recognized that this and other statutory ...

docket:	a3410-07
court:	njappellate
decided:	2008-11-19
status:	published
citation:	403 N.J. Super. 590
Document Size:	79924

7 STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. ARLENE E. VOGT, -- rank: 413

... impose such use restrictions was granted by various statutes, including N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20, which confers on shore towns the power to, "by ...

docket:	a5140-99
court:	njappellate
decided:	2001-06-25
status:	published
citation:	341 N.J. Super. 407
Document Size:	42103

8 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS MARK OLIVER, ET AL -- rank: 367

... because they fail to precisely define waters "bounding the municipality," N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20. However, we conclude these terms are sufficiently precise to ...

docket:	a7303-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1999-04-13
status:	published
citation:
Document Size:	37148

9 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS MARK OLIVER, ET AL -- rank: 367

... because they fail to precisely define waters "bounding the municipality," N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20. However, we conclude these terms are sufficiently precise to ...

docket:	a7268-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1999-04-13
status:	published
citation:
Document Size:	37148

10 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS MARK OLIVER, ET AL -- rank: 367

... because they fail to precisely define waters "bounding the municipality," N.J.S.A. 40:61-22.20. However, we conclude these terms are sufficiently precise to ...

docket:	a7124-96
court:	njappellate
decided:	1999-04-13
status:	published
citation:	320 N.J.Super. 405
Document Size:	37172