1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 101 N.J.
  5. 101 N.J. 95 (1985)
 

PUB. SERV. ELEC. v. N.J. DEPT. OF ENVIRON

101 N.J. 95 (1985)

501 A.2d 125

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS, v. THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENTS AND CROSS-APPELLANTS. ROLLINS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (N.J.), INC., RESPONDENT, v. THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, APPELLANT. MAGNESIUM ELEKTRON, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT, v. THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLANTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided November 25, 1985.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Roger M. Nelson and Scott M. DuBoff, a member of the District of Columbia bar, argued the cause for appellants and cross-respondents (Roger M. Nelson, attorney; Scott M. DeBoff, Robert O. Brokaw, Carl L. Sulzberger and James E. Franklin, of counsel).

Paul H. Schneider, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents and cross-appellants (Irwin I. Kimmclman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, and Deborah T. Poritz, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel).

Alvin E. Granite argued the cause for respondent Rollins Environmental Services (NJ), Inc. (Granite and Heim, attorneys; Alvin E. Granite and Craig H. Klayman, of counsel and on the brief).

Richard M. Conley argued the cause for respondent Magnesium Elektron, Inc., etc. (Schaff, Mahon, Motiuk, Gladstone & Conley, attorneys; Richard M. Conley and I. Leo Motiuk, of counsel; I. Leo Motiuk, on the brief).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by O'HERN, J.

The central issue in this appeal is whether the Department of Environmental Protection has correctly established permit fees for dischargers of heated effluent into the State's waterways. The statutory scheme prescribes that such permit fees "shall be based upon * * * the estimated cost of processing, monitoring and administering the * * * permits." N.J.S.A. 58:10A-9. In deciding that issue we must determine...

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