Gilday v. Hauchwit
226 A.2d 834, 48 N.J. 557, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 281
Opinion
The judgment as to the defendant Carlo is reversed for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Gaulkin and the matter is remanded to the Passaic County Court with directions to enter judgment in favor of said defendant.
For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 6.
For affirmance — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gilday v. Hauchwit, 226 A.2d 834, 48 N.J. 557, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 281 (N.J. 1967).
226 A.2d 834 (Gilday v. Hauchwit) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kassick v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp.
576 A.2d 270 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1990)
Butler v. Acme Markets, Inc.
445 A.2d 1141 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1982)
Suarez v. Dosky
407 A.2d 1237 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1979)
Steward v. Magnolia
340 A.2d 678 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1975)
Logan v. Tp. of No. Brunswick
322 A.2d 467 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1974)
Kent v. County of Hudson
245 A.2d 747 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1968)