Devaney v. Sarno
323 A.2d 449, 65 N.J. 235, 1974 N.J. LEXIS 175
Opinion
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, 125 N. J. Super. 414.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, and Justices Jacobs, Hall, Mountain, Sullivan, Pashman and Clifford — 7.
For reversal — Fone.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Devaney v. Sarno, 323 A.2d 449, 65 N.J. 235, 1974 N.J. LEXIS 175 (N.J. 1974).
323 A.2d 449 (Devaney v. Sarno) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Toliver v. General Motors Corp.
482 So. 2d 213 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1986)
Ford Motor Co. v. Hill
404 So. 2d 1049 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
Mohr v. BF GOODRICH RUBBER COMPANY
371 A.2d 288 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1977)
Polyard v. Terry
372 A.2d 378 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1977)
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
537 F.2d 726 (Third Circuit, 1976)
Huddell v. Levin
537 F.2d 726 (Third Circuit, 1976)
Johnson v. Clark Equipment Company
547 P.2d 132 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1976)
Huddell v. Levin
395 F. Supp. 64 (D. New Jersey, 1975)