Mueller v. Boulevard Commissioners

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Mueller v. Boulevard Commissioners

94 A. 84, 87 N.J.L. 702, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 277

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJuly 5, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 A. 84 (Mueller v. Boulevard Commissioners) 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

Mueller v. Boulevard Commissioners, 94 A. 84, 87 N.J.L. 702, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 277 (N.J. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam of the Supreme Court adopting the reasons given by Mr. Justice Swayze in discharging the rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Ciiiee Justice, Garrison, Trencharl, Bergen, Minturn, Black, Vredenburgii, White, Terhune, Williams, JJ. 11.

For reversal—Hone.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam of the Supreme Court adopting the reasons given by Mr. Justice Swayze in discharging the rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Ciiiee Justice, Garrison, Trencharl, Bergen, Minturn, Black, Vredenburgii, White, Terhune, Williams, JJ. 11.

For reversal—Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A. 84, 87 N.J.L. 702, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mueller-v-boulevard-commissioners-nj-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack