Glavocich v. Emery

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Glavocich v. Emery

21 A.2d 298, 127 N.J.L. 17, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 134

DecidedJuly 17, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 21 A.2d 298 (Glavocich v. Emery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glavocich v. Emery, 21 A.2d 298, 127 N.J.L. 17, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 134 (N.J. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Clkiam.

The prosecutor seeks to review his conviction by the Recorder’s Court of Hoboken of being a disorderly person in violation of N. J. S. A. 2 :201-1, et seq.

The sole question is whether the Recorder’s Court was divested of jurisdiction by the creation of the Court of the Fourth Criminal Judicial District of Hudson County by chapter 201 Pamph. L. 1940, et seq.; N. J. S. A. 2:212-4.1, et seq.

This same question was raised in the case of Lanning v. Hudson County Court of Common Pleas et al., 127 N. J. L. 10. The opinion in that case, being filed this day, is that the statute, supra, creating the Criminal Judicial District Courts does not divest the municipal criminal courts of jurisdiction to try and determine violations under the “Disorderly Persons Law,” supra. For the reasons therein expressed the writ in the instant case is dismissed, with costs.

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

Pee Clkiam.

The prosecutor seeks to review his conviction by the Recorder’s Court of Hoboken of being a disorderly person in violation of N. J. S. A. 2 :201-1, et seq.

The sole question is whether the Recorder’s Court was divested of jurisdiction by the creation of the Court of the Fourth Criminal Judicial District of Hudson County by chapter 201 Pamph. L. 1940, et seq.; N. J. S. A. 2:212-4.1, et seq.

This same question was raised in the case of Lanning v. Hudson County Court of Common Pleas et al., 127 N. J. L. 10. The opinion in that case, being filed this day, is that the statute, supra, creating the Criminal Judicial District Courts does not divest the municipal criminal courts of jurisdiction to try and determine violations under the “Disorderly Persons Law,” supra. For the reasons therein expressed the writ in the instant case is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.2d 298, 127 N.J.L. 17, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glavocich-v-emery-nj-1941.