Marzotto v. Gay Garment Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Marzotto v. Gay Garment Co.

80 A.2d 554, 7 N.J. 116, 1951 N.J. LEXIS 202

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMay 14, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 80 A.2d 554 (Marzotto v. Gay Garment Co.) 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

Marzotto v. Gay Garment Co., 80 A.2d 554, 7 N.J. 116, 1951 N.J. LEXIS 202 (N.J. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge McGeehan speaking for the majority in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, 11 N. J. Super. 46, except that the defendant, Nathan Peekerman, is relieved of the payment of the plaintiffs costs on his appeal as provided in said opinion.

For affirmance and modification—Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Heher, Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—7.

For reversal—None.

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

Pee Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge McGeehan speaking for the majority in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, 11 N. J. Super. 46, except that the defendant, Nathan Peekerman, is relieved of the payment of the plaintiffs costs on his appeal as provided in said opinion.

For affirmance and modification—Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Heher, Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—7.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.2d 554, 7 N.J. 116, 1951 N.J. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marzotto-v-gay-garment-co-nj-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack