MCMENAMY AND MCMENAMY v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Gerald C. Neary argued the cause for appellants ( Pitney, Hardin, Kipp Szuch, attorneys). Mary R. Hamill, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent ( Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

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)

Gerald C. Neary argued the cause for appellants ( Pitney, Hardin, Kipp Szuch, attorneys). Mary R. Hamill, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent ( Irwin I. Kimmelman, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; James J. Ciancia, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

EDWARD L. MCMENAMY AND MARGARET MCMENAMY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Tax Court, reported at 3 N.J. Tax 356 (Tax Ct. 1981).

For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O'HERN — 5.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

MCMENAMY AND MCMENAMY v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION

EDWARD L. MCMENAMY AND MARGARET MCMENAMY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Comments