Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE CITY OF CLIFTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS; IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE BOROUGH OF RIDGEFIELD, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS; BOROUGH OF RIDGEFIELD, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JOHN A. KERVICK, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1972-02-22
Citations: 60 N.J. 185
Docket Number: 
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE CITY OF CLIFTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE BOROUGH OF RIDGEFIELD, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. BOROUGH OF RIDGEFIELD, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JOHN A. KERVICK, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 185–185

Head Matter:
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE CITY OF CLIFTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE BOROUGH OF RIDGEFIELD, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BERGEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. BOROUGH OF RIDGEFIELD, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. JOHN A. KERVICK, TREASURER OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Argued February 7, 1972
Decided February 22, 1972.
Mr. Frank A. Carlet argued the cause for appellant, City of Clifton (Mr. Arthur J. Sullivan, Jr., City Counsel. Messrs. Breslin and Monaghan for appellant, Borough of Ridgefield, et al; Mr. John A. Schepisi, of counsel.)
Mr. Richard M. Conley, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents (Mr. George F. Kugler, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. Elias Abelson, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed for the reasons expressed in its opinion (114 N. J. Super. 253).
For affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Prancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Mountain—7.
For reversal—None.