Boileau v. De Cecco

323 A.2d 449, 65 N.J. 234
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 10, 1974·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

65 N.J. 234 (1974)
323 A.2d 449

DONNA BOILEAU, DONNA BOILEAU AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MAURICE BOILEAU, AND DONNA BOILEAU AS ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF MAURICE BOILEAU, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
LOUIS DE CECCO AND MARION DE CECCO, JOINTLY, SEVERALLY AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued May 21, 1974.
Decided June 10, 1974.

Mr. Arthur Montano argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Kisselman, Deighan, Montano & Summers, attorneys; Mr. Gary L. Jacobs on the brief).

Mr. Leonard W. Moss argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Moss, Thatcher & Moss, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, 125 N.J. Super. 263.

*235 For affirmance — Chief Justice HUGHES, and Justices JACOBS, HALL, MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN, PASHMAN and CLIFFORD — 7.

For reversal — None.

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

Boileau v. De Cecco, 323 A.2d 449, 65 N.J. 234 (N.J. 1974).

323 A.2d 449 (Boileau v. De Cecco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Weber v. United States
991 F. Supp. 694 (D. New Jersey, 1998)
Paige v. North Oaks Partners
134 Cal. App. 3d 860 (California Court of Appeal, 1982)
Devaney v. Sarno
323 A.2d 449 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1974)