Case Name: VIRGINIA M. McKENNEY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BRENDAN BYRNE, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1978-06-28
Citations: 160 N.J. Super. 303
Docket Number: 
Parties: VIRGINIA M. McKENNEY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BRENDAN BYRNE, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 160
Pages: 303–306

Head Matter:
VIRGINIA M. McKENNEY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BRENDAN BYRNE, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued June 13, 1978
Decided June 28, 1978.
Before Judges Halpern, Larner and King.
Mr. Richard M. Conley argued the cause for appellants (Schaff, Conley & Motiuk, attorneys).
Mr. Harry Haushalter, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for all respondents (Mr. John J. Degnan, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney for respondents Brendan Byrne, Governor of New Jersey; Richard C. Leone, State Treasurer; Sidney Glaser, Director of the Division of Taxation; Patricia Q. Sheehan, Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs; and John E. Laezza, Director of the Division of Local Government Services; Mr. William F. Hyland, former Attorney General of New Jersey, and Mr. Stephen Skillman, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).
Mr. David C. Patterson filed a brief and appeared for respondent Township of Winslow (Messrs. Maressa and Wade, attorneys; Mr. Joseph A. Maressa of counsel and on the brief and Mr. Ronald W. Sahli on the brief).
Messrs. Richard Dieterly, Garrett M. Heher and Alan J. Karcher filed a brief and appeared for respondents Borough of Sayreville, Township of Holland and Lower Alloways Creek Township (Messrs. Gebhart § Kiefer, attorneys for respondent Township of Holland; Messrs. Smith, Stratton, Wise & Heher, attorneys for respondent Lower Alloways Creek Township; and Messrs. Karcher, Reavey & Karcher, attorneys for respondent Borough of Sayreville).
Mr. Joseph R. Mariniello filed a brief and appeared for respondent Borough of Ridgefield.
Mr. James B. Convery filed a brief and appeared for respondent City of South Amboy (Messrs. Convery and Con-very, attorneys).
Mr. Frederick W. Hardt filed a brief and appeared for respondent City of Burlington (Mr. Maurice Denbo, attorney).
Mr. Paul E. Strapp filed a brief and appeared for respondent Township of Woodbridge (Mr. Arthur W. Burgess, attorney).
Mr. Jerome Krueger filed a brief and appeared for respondent City of Linden.
Mr. Robert J. Benbrook filed a brief and appeared for respondent Township of Blairstown ,(Messrs. Morrow and Benbrook, attorneys).
Mr. William, E. Andersen filed a brief and appeared for respondent Township of Branehburg (Messrs. Woolson, Guterl, Sutphen & Anderson, attorneys; Mr. Mark S. Anderson on the brief).
Mr. Norman A. Doyle, Jr. filed a brief and appeared for respondent Town of Kearny.
Mr. Douglas C. Willer appeared for respondent Township of East Hanover (Messrs. Edwards & Gallo, attorneys).
Mr. Leonard W. Roeber appeared for respondent Township of Lacey (Messrs. Russo & Courtney, attorneys).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellants attack the constitutionality of N. J. S. A. 54:30A-61 wherein the act taxing public utilities (N. J. S. A. 54:30A-49, et seq.) provides for the apportionment among municipalities of the gross receipts collected by the State under the act. They contend that the formula used to apportion the gross receipts collected among the municipalities "is unconstitutional special legislation, and denies equal protection of the law to individual taxpayers, because the apportionment arbitrarily excludes most taxpayers and municipalities from the receipt of their fair share of these revenues."
They appeal from a denial of their motion for summary judgment and from a granting of defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment.
We affirm essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Sehoch in his opinion reported at 147 N. J. Super. 158 (Law Div. 1976). It should be noted that the case of Public Service Electric & Gas Co. v. Woodbridge Tp., 139 N. J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1976), cited by Judge Schoch in his opinion, was reversed in part following the issuance of his opinion, 73 N. J. 474 (1977), on grounds not relevant to the instant appeal.
Affirmed.