Court Opinion

ID: 9764927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:44:06.023175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:02.362912
License: Public Domain

Jacobs, J.,
(concurring) : I would reverse because there was no satisfactory factual showing that the new fee was either unreasonable or otherwise improper. Rut I would not abandon our long-standing legal doctrine that business license fees imposed under statutes such as N. J. 8. A. 40:52-l and 2 may not be so high as to be oppressively prohibitive or confiscatory. That doctrine has served as a just and wholesome restraint, has comported with the legislative contemplation, and has been repeatedly approved and applied by our courts. See Gurland v. Kearny, 128 N. J. L. *40022, 25-26 (Sup. Ct. 1942); Hoffman v. Neptune City, 137 N. J. L. 485, 487-488 (Sup. Ct. 1948); Michaels v. Twp. Committee of the Twp. of Pemberton, 3 N. J. Super. 523, 528 (Law Div. 1949); Edwards v. Mayor, etc., of Borough of Moonachie, 3 N. J. 17, 25 (1949); Bellington v. East Windsor Tp., 17 N. J. 558, 567-569 (1955); Gilbert v. Town of Irvington, 20 N. J. 432, 437 (1956); Konya v. Readington Tp., 54 N. J. Super. 363, 369 (App. Div.), aff'd, 30 N. J. 556 (1959); Monmouth Jet. Mob. Home Pic. v. So. Brunswick Tp., 107 N. J. Super. 18, 28 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 55 N. J. 30 (1969); see also 9 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 26.33, pp. 79-80 (3d ed. Revised 1964); 53 C. J. S. Licenses § 19 pp. 519-521 (1948).
Jacobs, J. concurring in result.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice Weinteaub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 7.
For affirmance — Fone.