CATTO v. SCHNEPP, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. James L. Cooper argued the cause for appellants Catto ( Messrs. Cooper, Greenberg, Katzman Todd, attorneys). Mr. Gerald M. Eisenstat argued the cause for respondent Schnepp ( Messrs. Shapiro, Brotman, Eisenstat Capizola, attorneys). Mr. Edward S. Miller argued the cause for respondent Township of Maurice River ( Messrs. Gant Miller, attorneys). Mr. Anthony D. Buonadonna argued the cause for respondent Cumberland County Board of Freeholders ( Messrs. Tuso and Gruccio, attorneys).

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)

Mr. James L. Cooper argued the cause for appellants Catto ( Messrs. Cooper, Greenberg, Katzman Todd, attorneys). Mr. Gerald M. Eisenstat argued the cause for respondent Schnepp ( Messrs. Shapiro, Brotman, Eisenstat Capizola, attorneys). Mr. Edward S. Miller argued the cause for respondent Township of Maurice River ( Messrs. Gant Miller, attorneys). Mr. Anthony D. Buonadonna argued the cause for respondent Cumberland County Board of Freeholders ( Messrs. Tuso and Gruccio, attorneys).

Judges

See more information ...

Smart Summary

ROBERT F. CATTO, AN INFANT BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, GREGG CATTO, ANDGREGG CATTO, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. HOWARD A. SCHNEPP,MAURICE RIVER TOWNSHIP, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARDOF FREEHOLDERS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT,

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division, 121 N.J. Super. 506, is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in its opinion.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, Justices JACOBS, HALL and MOUNTAIN, and Judges CONFORD and LEWIS — 6.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.