Mueller v. Boulevard Commissioners
94 A. 84, 87 N.J.L. 702, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 277
Opinion
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
Mueller v. Boulevard Commissioners, 94 A. 84, 87 N.J.L. 702, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 277 (N.J. 1915).
94 A. 84 (Mueller v. Boulevard Commissioners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
LEGION MANOR v. Township of Wayne
231 A.2d 201 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1967)
Eckerle v. Ferris
1935 OK 1038 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)