ROSELLE v. EAST ORANGE, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Samuel A. Larner argued the cause for the appellants ( Messrs. Budd, Larner Kent, attorneys). Mr. William P. Reiss argued the cause for the respondent ( Mr. William L. Brach, attorney).

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)

Mr. Samuel A. Larner argued the cause for the appellants ( Messrs. Budd, Larner Kent, attorneys). Mr. William P. Reiss argued the cause for the respondent ( Mr. William L. Brach, attorney).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

PIETRO ROSELLE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE,COUNTY OF ESSEX, NEW JERSEY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons given by the trial court in an opinion reported under the name of Greggio v. Orange, 69 N.J. Super. 453 (1961).

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL and HANEMAN — 6.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

ROSELLE v. EAST ORANGE

PIETRO ROSELLE, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE,COUNTY OF ESSEX, NEW JERSEY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Comments