Apollo v. Kim Anh Pham

539 A.2d 1222, 224 N.J. Super. 89
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided December 11, 1987·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

224 N.J. Super. 89 (1987)
539 A.2d 1222

BENJAMIN APOLLO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
KIM ANH PHAM, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued April 1, 1987.
Decided December 11, 1987.

Before Judges DEIGHAN, HAVEY and MUIR.

Edward J. Bowen argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent (Edward J. Bowen on the brief).

Robert C. Rivas argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant (Bergen County Legal Services, attorneys; Robert C. Rivas on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Chancery Division denying a trial by jury is affirmed essentially for the reasons set forth by Judge Sorkow in his opinion reported at 192 N.J. Super. 427 (Ch.Div. 1983).

(The balance of the opinion which disposes of essentially factual issues in the same case decided by another judge is omitted from this publication.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Apollo v. Kim Anh Pham, 539 A.2d 1222, 224 N.J. Super. 89 (N.J. Ct. App. 1987).

539 A.2d 1222 (Apollo v. Kim Anh Pham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brennan v. Orban
678 A.2d 667 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1996)
Giovine v. Giovine
663 A.2d 109 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1995)
Croswell v. Shenouda
646 A.2d 1140 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1994)
Tweedley v. Tweedley
649 A.2d 630 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1994)
Boardwalk Properties v. BPHC.
602 A.2d 733 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1991)