BALL v. STATE, 104 N.J. 383 (1986)

517 A.2d 391 GEORGE E. BALL, ETC., ET AL. v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY. Supreme Court of New Jersey. May 12, 1986. Cross-petition for certification denied. (See 207 N.J. Super. 100) Page 384

Read More

JONES v. STRELECKI, 48 N.J. 116 (1966)

223 A.2d 494 HANNIE L. JONES, ADMINISTRATRIX, ETC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. JUNE STRELECKI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Supreme Court of New Jersey. September 20, 1966. On petition for certification to Appellate Division, Superior Court. Messrs. Falciani, Cotton Chell, for the petitioner. Messrs. White Simpson, for the respondent. Granted. Page 117

Read More

MATTER OF PLAZA, 101 N.J. 648 (1986)

502 A.2d 1 In the Matter of RICHARD J. PLAZA, an attorney at law. Supreme Court of New Jersey. January 28, 1986. DISCIPLINARY MATTERS ORDER RICHARD J. PLAZA of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1968, having tendered his consent to a disbarment as an attorney at law of […]

Read More

PAUL v. PASSERO, 180 N.J. 450 (2004)

852 A.2d 188 THOMAS J. PAUL, JR., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. ROBERT J. PASSERO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Supreme Court of New Jersey. June 4, 2004. It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is dismissed as moot on the grounds that plaintiff’s appeal is still pending in the Appellate Division.

Read More

IN RE WITHERINGTON, 88 N.J. 241 (1982)

440 A.2d 1327 IN THE MATTER OF C. DAVID WITHERINGTON, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. Supreme Court of New Jersey. January 21, 1982. Page 242 Richard L. Bland, Jr. argued the cause for the District V Ethics Committee. Neither the respondent nor his attorney appeared and the latter advised the Disciplinary Review Board by telephone that […]

Read More

PALKOSKI v. GARCIA, 19 N.J. 175 (1955)

115 A.2d 539 DENNIS PALKOSKI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. JOSE M. GARCIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS. Supreme Court of New Jersey.Argued June 6, 1955 — Decided June 27, 1955. Appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Page 176 Mr. Paul T. Huckin argued the cause for appellants and cross-respondents (Messrs. Huckin Huckin, attorneys). Page […]

Read More

BROWN v. LASSEFF, 111 N.J.L. 235 (1933)

168 A. 294 ORVILLE BROWN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. ARNOLD LASSEFF, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; JAMES RUSSO ET AL., DEFENDANTS. Court of Errors and Appeals.Argued May 23, 1933 — Decided September 27, 1933. 1. Evidence examined and held, to present question of fact for the jury as to whether or not the driver of appellant’s automobile was acting […]

Read More

BRENGARD v. MEIGHAN, 100 N.J. Eq. 387 (1927)

136 A. 502 ELIZABETH BRENGARD, complainant, v. FLORENCE E. MEIGHAN, defendant. Court of Chancery. Decided March 8th, 1927. Where an assignment of a mortgage was dated after the death of the assignee, and the title to lands depended upon a foreclosure of the assigned mortgage by a party who received it by assignment of the […]

Read More

WEINER v. BOARD COMMISSIONERS, PERTH AMBOY, 106 N.J.L. 276 (1930)

149 A. 540 HARRY WEINER, PROSECUTOR, v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF PERTH AMBOY AND THE CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, RESPONDENTS. Supreme Court of New Jersey.Submitted October 11, 1929 — Decided March 25, 1930. 1. Section 17 of the Walsh act (Pamph. L. 1911, p. 480, as amended by Pamph. L. 1913, […]

Read More

MONTCLAIR TRUST CO. v. ZINK, 141 N.J. Eq. 401 (1948)

57 A.2d 372 MONTCLAIR TRUST COMPANY, BLOOMFIELD BANK AND TRUST COMPANY and JOHN J. CRAWLEY, executors of the last will and testament of David B. Mills, deceased, and THE DAVELLA MILLS FOUNDATION, residuary legatee and devisee under said will, appellants, v. HOMER C. ZINK, Commissioner, Acting Director of the Division of Taxation, State Department of […]

Read More

FRAWLEY v. PENNSYLVANIA R.R. CO., 120 N.J.L. 161 (1938)

199 A. 34 GEORGE A. FRAWLEY, RESPONDENT, v. THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT. Supreme Court of New Jersey.Argued January 19, 1938 — Decided May 9, 1938. In view of uncontradicted evidence tending to show that plaintiff, a member of a beneficial order, claiming to be entitled to certain benefits, and having been excluded therefrom, had […]

Read More