Horowitz v. Civil Service Commission of N.J.

171 A. 779, 112 N.J.L. 499
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided April 12, 1934·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The judgments in these cases are affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the per curiam opinion filed in the Supreme Court, with the qualification that the act justifying the rejection of Reinhart was not chapter 298 of the laws of 1920, but chapter 52 of the laws of 1922, page 98, as amended by chapter 349 of the laws of 1929, page 784.

For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Chief Justice, Teenchabd, Paekee, Lloyd, Hehek, Pekskie, Van Buskikk, Kays, Hetfield, Deaf, Wells, Dill, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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

Horowitz v. Civil Service Commission of N.J., 171 A. 779, 112 N.J.L. 499 (N.J. 1934).

171 A. 779 (Horowitz v. Civil Service Commission of N.J.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Graham v. Schmid
3 A.2d 701 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)
Jones v. Orlando
195 A. 717 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1937)