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