GLUCK v. RUIZ-URRUTIA, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

For the appellant, Maurice B. Gluck, pro se. For the respondent Rynda Development Company, Jacob Hauptman.

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)

For the appellant, Maurice B. Gluck, pro se. For the respondent Rynda Development Company, Jacob Hauptman.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

MAURICE B. GLUCK, APPELLANT, v. SERGIO RUIZ-URRUTIA ET AL., PARTNERS, DOINGBUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF RUIZ-URRUTIA COMPANY, BUILDERS; RYNDADEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, AND AMELIA R. GLUCK, OWNER,RESPONDENTS.

PER CURIAM.

The order under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed by Judge Dungan in the Circuit Court. For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, KALISCH, BLACK, KATZENBACH, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, WHITE, GARDNER, VAN BUSKIRK, CLARK, McGLENNON, KAYS, JJ. 16.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

GLUCK v. RUIZ-URRUTIA

MAURICE B. GLUCK, APPELLANT, v. SERGIO RUIZ-URRUTIA ET AL., PARTNERS, DOINGBUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF RUIZ-URRUTIA COMPANY, BUILDERS; RYNDADEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, AND AMELIA R. GLUCK, OWNER,RESPONDENTS.

Comments