BRENNANS. v. Biber

239 A.2d 261, 99 N.J. Super. 247
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedFebruary 19, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 239 A.2d 261 (BRENNANS. v. Biber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
BRENNANS. v. Biber, 239 A.2d 261, 99 N.J. Super. 247 (N.J. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

99 N.J. Super. 247 (1968)
239 A.2d 261

PATRICK BRENNAN, BRIAN BRENNAN AND SEAN BRENNAN, INFANTS BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MONICA BRENNAN, MONICA BRENNAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND JOHN T. BRENNAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
HENRY BIBER AND HENRY STOCKHAMMER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued February 5, 1968.
Decided February 19, 1968.

*248 Before Judges SULLIVAN, FOLEY and LEONARD.

Mr. Daniel Crystal argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Cohn & Lifland, attorneys).

Mr. Sam Weiss argued the cause for respondent Henry Biber (Messrs. Jung, Selikoff, Rathman & Dwyer, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Law Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Kole's opinion reported at 93 N.J. Super. 351 (Law Div. 1966).

*249 Additionally, we dispose of a point not specifically discussed in the reported opinion. Plaintiffs contend that certain evidence rulings by the trial court and comments of the court generally relating thereto had the effect of removing from jury consideration important aspects of the injury claim of Sean Brennan. The record does not support the contention. Moreover, in its charge, the court clearly pointed out to the jury that there was a testimonial conflict with respect to these matters which required jury determination.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Tynan v. Curzi
753 A.2d 187 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2000)
Mealey v. Marella
744 A.2d 1226 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)
Scalise v. Bristol Hospital, No. Cv93-0525217 S (Jul. 6, 1995)
1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 7523 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)
Carter v. University of Medicine & Dentistry
838 F. Supp. 957 (D. New Jersey, 1993)
Boucher Ex Rel. Boucher v. Dixie Medical Center
850 P.2d 1179 (Utah Supreme Court, 1992)
Michaels v. Nemethvargo
571 A.2d 850 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1990)
Dralle v. Ruder
500 N.E.2d 514 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1986)
Shattuck v. Gulliver
481 A.2d 1110 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1984)
Siciliano v. Capitol City Shows, Inc.
475 A.2d 19 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1984)
Friel v. VINELAND OBST. AND GYNECOLOGICAL PROFESSIONAL ASS'N
400 A.2d 147 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 A.2d 261, 99 N.J. Super. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brennans-v-biber-njsuperctappdiv-1968.