DI COSTANZO v. MATTHEWS CONST. CO, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mrs. Ruth Rabstein argued the cause for appellant ( Pellettieri and Rabstein, attorneys; Mr. Robert A. Gladstone, on the brief). Mr. Fred R. Daniels argued the cause for respondent ( Mr. John W. Taylor, attorney; Mr. Fred R. Daniels, of counsel).

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)

Mrs. Ruth Rabstein argued the cause for appellant ( Pellettieri and Rabstein, attorneys; Mr. Robert A. Gladstone, on the brief). Mr. Fred R. Daniels argued the cause for respondent ( Mr. John W. Taylor, attorney; Mr. Fred R. Daniels, of counsel).

Judges

See more information ...

Smart Summary

FIORE DI COSTANZO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. MATTHEWS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

The court being equally divided, the judgment of the Appellate Division whose opinion is reported in 110 N.J. Super. 383 (1970) is affirmed.

For affirmance — Justices FRANCIS, HALL and MOUNTAIN — 3.

For reversal — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS and PROCTOR — 3.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.