1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 166 N.J.
  5. 166 N.J. Super. 411 (1979)
 

AUTOMATIC MERCHANDISING COUNCIL v. GLASER

166 N.J. Super. 411 (1979)

400 A.2d 62

AUTOMATIC MERCHANDISING COUNCIL OF NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CANTEEN CORPORATION, A CORPORATION LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW JERSEY, PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS, v. SIDNEY GLASER, DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF TAXATION, SALES TAX BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. AUTOMATIC MERCHANDISING COUNCIL OF NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND THE DRINX PLUS COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW JERSEY, PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS, v. SIDNEY GLASER, DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF TAXATION, SALES TAX BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. AUTOMATIC CATERING, INC., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided February 23, 1979.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Michael E. Goldman, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Mr. John J. Degnan, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. William F. Hyland, former Attorney General of New Jersey, and Mr. Michael E. Goldman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Mr. David J. Connolly, Jr. argued the cause for respondents Automatic Merchandising Council, Canteen Corporation and Drinx Plus Company (Messrs. Schenck, Price, Smith & King attorneys).

Mr. Lawrence M. Fuchs argued the cause for respondent Automatic Catering Inc. (Messrs. Zager, Fuchs, Leckstein & Kauff, attorneys).

Before Judges FRITZ, BISCHOFF and MORGAN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by MORGAN, J.A.D.

For the second time we are confronted with an issue concerning the applicability of the Sales and Use Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:32B-1 et seq. (hereinafter "the act"), to food sales made through coin-operated vending machines. In Automatic Merchandising Council v. Glaser, 127 N.J.Super. 413 (App. Div. 1974), we invalidated an administrative regulation...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases