DEPT. OF LAW PUBLIC SAFETY v. MERLINO, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Peter L. Bruso argued the cause for appellant, Philip Leonetti ( Jacobs, Todd Bruso, attorneys; Edwin J. Jacobs, Jr., of counsel; Edwin J. Jacobs, Jr., and Rosemary A. Cain, on the briefs). Michael L. Testa argued the cause for appellant, Lawrence Merlino ( Basile, Testa Testa, attorneys). Gary A. Ehrlich, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent ( W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Gary A. Ehrlich and Anthony J. Parrillo, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel). Dennis Daly, Senior Assistant Counsel, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Casino Control Commission ( Robert J. Genatt, General Counsel, attorney; Dennis Daly and Carole R. Jacobson, Assistant Counsel, on the brief).

Judges

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Peter L. Bruso argued the cause for appellant, Philip Leonetti ( Jacobs, Todd Bruso, attorneys; Edwin J. Jacobs, Jr., of counsel; Edwin J. Jacobs, Jr., and Rosemary A. Cain, on the briefs). Michael L. Testa argued the cause for appellant, Lawrence Merlino ( Basile, Testa Testa, attorneys). Gary A. Ehrlich, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent ( W. Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Gary A. Ehrlich and Anthony J. Parrillo, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel). Dennis Daly, Senior Assistant Counsel, argued the cause for respondent New Jersey Casino Control Commission ( Robert J. Genatt, General Counsel, attorney; Dennis Daly and Carole R. Jacobson, Assistant Counsel, on the brief).

Judges

See more information ...

Smart Summary

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF GAMINGENFORCEMENT, RESPONDENT, v. LAWRENCE MERLINO, APPELLANT.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF GAMINGENFORCEMENT, RESPONDENT,

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, 216 N.J. Super. 579.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.