HARRISON v. STANTON, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Arthur F. Mead argued the cause for the appellant (
Cox Walburg, attorneys). Mr. John H. Yauch, Jr., argued the cause for the respondent (
Gilhooly, Yauch
Fagan, attorneys).

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. Arthur F. Mead argued the cause for the appellant (
Cox Walburg, attorneys). Mr. John H. Yauch, Jr., argued the cause for the respondent (
Gilhooly, Yauch
Fagan, attorneys).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

E. DONALD HARRISON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. EDWARD H. STANTON,RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, 26 N.J. Super. 194 For affirmance — Justices HEHER, WACHENFELD, BURLING, JACOBS and BRENNAN — 5.

For reversal — Chief Justice VANDERBILT, and Justice OLIPHANT — 2.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

HARRISON v. STANTON

E. DONALD HARRISON, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. EDWARD H. STANTON,RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Comments