G. v. C.

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

G. v. C.

412 A.2d 128, 172 N.J. Super. 360, 1979 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1025

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedDecember 3, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 412 A.2d 128 (G. v. C.) 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

G. v. C., 412 A.2d 128, 172 N.J. Super. 360, 1979 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1025 (N.J. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this bastardy proceeding a trial in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court resulted in a dismissal in defendant’s favor. Plaintiff appealed to the then County Court and over defendant’s objection was granted a trial by jury. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant appeals and contends that the trial judge (1) erred in granting plaintiff a jury trial in contravention of R. 4:74 6, (2) committed “plain error” in not permitting certain testimony to be read back to the jury, and (3) committed “plain error” in not dismissing the complaint because the child’s blood had been completely replaced following birth because of RH complications.

With respect of defendant’s first contention we affirm for the reasons stated in Judge Callahan’s written opinion of September 12, 1978. Defendant’s remaining two contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11 3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this bastardy proceeding a trial in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court resulted in a dismissal in defendant’s favor. Plaintiff appealed to the then County Court and over defendant’s objection was granted a trial by jury. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant appeals and contends that the trial judge (1) erred in granting plaintiff a jury trial in contravention of R. 4:74 6, (2) committed “plain error” in not permitting certain testimony to be read back to the jury, and (3) committed “plain error” in not dismissing the complaint because the child’s blood had been completely replaced following birth because of RH complications.

With respect of defendant’s first contention we affirm for the reasons stated in Judge Callahan’s written opinion of September 12, 1978. Defendant’s remaining two contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11 3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 A.2d 128, 172 N.J. Super. 360, 1979 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-v-c-njsuperctappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack