Keith MacHinery Corp. v. South Plainfield

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Keith MacHinery Corp. v. South Plainfield

221 A.2d 47, 91 N.J. Super. 469

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJune 17, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 A.2d 47 (Keith MacHinery Corp. v. South Plainfield) 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

Keith MacHinery Corp. v. South Plainfield, 221 A.2d 47, 91 N.J. Super. 469 (N.J. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

91 N.J. Super. 469 (1966) 221 A.2d 47

KEITH MACHINERY CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD AND JOHN BORI, TAX COLLECTOR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued June 13, 1966. Decided June 17, 1966.

Before Judges CONFORD, KILKENNY and LEONARD.

Mr. John T. Keefe argued the cause for appellants (Mr. Edward J. Santoro, attorney).

Mr. Robert Silver argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Bilder, Bilder, Silver & McCurley, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons stated by Judge Gerofsky in his opinion.

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

91 N.J. Super. 469 (1966) 221 A.2d 47

KEITH MACHINERY CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD AND JOHN BORI, TAX COLLECTOR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued June 13, 1966. Decided June 17, 1966.

Before Judges CONFORD, KILKENNY and LEONARD.

Mr. John T. Keefe argued the cause for appellants (Mr. Edward J. Santoro, attorney).

Mr. Robert Silver argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Bilder, Bilder, Silver & McCurley, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons stated by Judge Gerofsky in his opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.2d 47, 91 N.J. Super. 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keith-machinery-corp-v-south-plainfield-njsuperctappdiv-1966.

Opinion

KEITH MACHINERY CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD AND JOHN BORI, TAX COLLECTOR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

KEITH MACHINERY CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD AND JOHN BORI, TAX COLLECTOR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.