Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel
|Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975)
|Opinion of the Court→|
|Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151 (1975), is the New Jersey Supreme Court case that originated the Mount Laurel doctrine.|
|Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
67 N.J. 151, 336 A.2d 713
SOUTHERN BURLINGTON COUNTY N.A.A.C.P. ET AL.,PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS AND CROSS-APPELLANTS, AND ETHEL LAWRENCE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS v. TOWNSHIP OF MOUNT LAUREL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT.
Argued: Argued Jan. 8, 1974 --- Decided: Decided March 24, 1975
Action was brought attacking system of land use regulation by township on ground that low and moderate income families are thereby unlawfully excluded from the municipality. The Superior Court, Law Division, 119 N.J.Super. 164, 290 A.2d 465, declared the township zoning ordinance totally invalid and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Hall, J., held that a developing municipality may not, by a system of land use regulation, make it physically and economically impossible to provide low and moderate income housing in the municipality for various categories of persons who need and want it; that ordinance permitting only single-family detached dwellings and which was so restrictive in its minimum lot area, lot frontage and building size requirements as to preclude single-family housing for even moderate income families was contrary to the general welfare; that release from consequences of tax system by limiting permissible types of housing to those having the fewest school children or those providing sufficient value to pay their own way could not be accomplished by restricting types of housing through the zoning process; and that ecological or environmental reasons was not a sufficient excuse for limiting housing to single-family dwellings on large lots.
Mountain and Pashman, JJ., filed concurring opinions.
||This page and licence template are being considered for potential deletion at Possible copyright violations. Please see the discussion there.|
|This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 206.01 of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium II § 206.03 and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.