Case Name: NICOLA SPADOLA ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT; NICOLA SPADOLA ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT; KOKAB GORAB ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT; JACOB CHERCKJIAN ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1931-04-09
Citations: 9 N.J. Misc. 438
Docket Number: 
Parties: NICOLA SPADOLA ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT. NICOLA SPADOLA ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT. KOKAB GORAB ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT. JACOB CHERCKJIAN ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 438–438

Head Matter:
NICOLA SPADOLA ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT. NICOLA SPADOLA ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT. KOKAB GORAB ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT. JACOB CHERCKJIAN ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. BOROUGH OF WOOD RIDGE, RESPONDENT.
Decided April 9, 1931.
For the prosecutors, Edward J. Luce and Walter A. Kipp..
For the defendant, Stanton T. Lawrence.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
These are four rules to show cause why writs of certiorari should not go to review certain assessments for street improvements as irregular and unwarranted in law, at least in part. The only question before us in each case is whether a writ should be allowed. Our examination of the proofs-satisfies us in each case that the writ should go. Such writs may accordingly be presented for allowance.