Maplewood Bank v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
638 A.2d 140, 135 N.J. 97
Opinion
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division opinion, reported at 265 N.J.Super. 25, 625 A.2d 537 (1993).
For affirmance—Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, and STEIN join in this opinion.—7.
Opposed—none.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Maplewood Bank v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 638 A.2d 140, 135 N.J. 97 (N.J. 1994).
638 A.2d 140 (Maplewood Bank v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5983, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9618 Catherine Pierce Brown, a Single Woman v. Investors Mortgage Company Seattle Management Company Stephen H. Anderson Jane Doe Anderson Puget Sound Investment Group Cls Mortgage Inc. Thomas Harsh Inc., D/B/A Thomas Harsh Profit Sharing Plan
121 F.3d 472 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Brown v. Investors Mortgage Co.
121 F.3d 472 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Fgb Realty Advisors v. Bennett
672 A.2d 545 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1995)