On January 12, 1971, in his annual address to the Legislature, Governor Cahill noted the potential of a sports complex in the meadowlands to be occupied by one or more major league sports teams. On April 19, 1971, the Sports Complex bill was introduced and overwhelmingly passed in the Senate by a 28-2 vote and in the Assembly by a 53-6 vote…
use of such teams, in addition to the facilities for horse racing and other spectator events; that such stadiums and other facilities would also accommodate other events and serve other uses which would provide needed recreation, forums and expositions for the public." The Legislature further found that "additional facilities [were] needed * * * to accommodate trade shows and other expositions in order to promote industry and development * * * and provide a forum for public events." The Legislature declared that the location of the complex in the meadowlands "would stimulate the needed development" of the area. N.J.S.A. 5:10-2.
The Authority is empowered to establish, develop, construct, operate, maintain, improve and otherwise effectuate a project to be located in the Hackensack meadowlands upon a site not to exceed 750 acres consisting of one or more stadiums, coliseums, arenas, pavilions, stands, field houses, playing fields, recreation centers, courts, gymnasiums, club houses, a race track for the holding of horse race meetings, and other buildings, structures, facilities, properties and appurtenances incidental and necessary to a complex suitable for the holding of athletic contests or other sporting events, or trade shows, exhibitions, spectacles, public meetings or other expositions, and such project may include driveways, roads, approaches, parking areas, parks, recreation areas, food vending facilities, restaurants, transportation structures, systems and facilities, and equipment, furnishings, and all other structures and appurtenant facilities related to, necessary for, or complementary to the purposes of the project or any facility thereof. [ 6(a)] To carry out this statutory mandate the Authority is given the power of eminent domain ( 9) and is authorized to issue bonds and notes which are expressly not debts of the State. 10. The Authority may relocate public highways and utilities after consultation with the Meadowlands Commission and the Department of Transportation. In locating and constructing the sports and exposition facilities the Authority is exempt from state and local zoning, planning and building codes. 5(x). The Authority is a public body corporate and politic established in the Department of Community Affairs. 4(a). Its membership consists of the State Treasurer, the Attorney General and a member of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission to be appointed by the Governor, all three being members ex officio, while four other members are to be appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. 4(b). From the latter group the Governor is to appoint a chairman, while the entire membership is to choose a vice-chairman as well as a secretary and treasurer (the latter two need not be members). 4(d).
The Legislature has the power to dissolve the Authority, provided "no debts or obligations [are] outstanding or ...
Cite this document
(“Legal case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/294738-legal-case
(Legal Case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 Words)
“Legal Case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/294738-legal-case.
Jovin did not take security deposit because he rented his house on the basis of personal consideration, as recommended by one of his good friends. Jovin also says that he had always had good tenants prior to Simons and that they never had any complaints about the house and were promptly paying the rent; Jovin had collected security deposits from his previous tenants, which was duly returned as per the written contractual agreement.
Name Professor Course Date Recent legal Case Involving a Contractual Issue Harvey v. Strickland (566 S.E.2d 529) 2002 Harvey had witnessed the case of the blockage in his carotid artery that Dr. Strickland offered to solve through carotid endarterectomy. In November 1996 in anticipation of the surgery that had to be performed to Harvey, he signed various forms “Refusal of Treatment” and the “Consent to Operation.” These documents had suggested that the patient had refused any blood transfusion efforts and acknowledged the risks involved in the decision (Harvey v.
They were joined by another man, Kartz, who left the two abruptly. Mc Fadden became suspicious and decided to follow them. The two men linked up with Kartz at a different store (Zucker’s). Mr Mc Fadden approached them, identified himself and subsequently enquired about their names.
and an employee and officer of its successor-in-interest DKP Corporation, both Florida-based. Petitioner alleged that respondent substantially violated Sec. 1962c of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act) when respondent interfered with petitioner's contracts to represent boxers Hasim Rahmen and Louis del Valle, made acts of fraud and misrepresentation and fraudulently refused to pay petitioner $300,000,which is due the respondent under a contract between the parties.
Because this professor is not tenured, he does not have a property right and therefore cannot say that he has a legally conceivable violation of due process. Moreover, it can be reasonably argued that were a court to find that there is a right to due process, that it has been met.
Implicit in the doctrine of free choice is a requirement that the confession statement is obtained by proper means in that the suspect has not been coerced or induced by anything said or done by persons in authority.
laintiff, he was not prepared to find that there was professional negligence on the basis of the evidence proffered at the trial of first instance and it the injury complained of was not always preventable. The plaintiff appealed the trial judge’s decision to the Court of