Nebel v. Nebel
247 A.2d 27, 103 N.J. Super. 216
Opinion
JEANNE D. NEBEL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT,
v.
ARTHUR J. NEBEL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Before Judges GOLDMANN, KOLOVSKY and CARTON.
Mr. Colin M. Dillon argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Pollis, Williams, Pappas & Dillon, attorneys).
Mr. Harold G. Pierson argued the cause for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The Chancery Division order under appeal is affirmed essentially for the reasons stated by Judge Wood, 99 N.J. Super. 256. The record provides substantial support for his findings and conclusions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Nebel v. Nebel, 247 A.2d 27, 103 N.J. Super. 216 (N.J. Ct. App. 1968).
247 A.2d 27 (Nebel v. Nebel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Black v. Black
92 A.3d 688 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2013)
Finger v. Zenn
762 A.2d 702 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2000)
In re the Estate of Link
746 A.2d 540 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)
Kiken v. Kiken
694 A.2d 557 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1997)
Quinn v. Johnson
589 A.2d 1077 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1991)
Enrico v. Goldsmith
568 A.2d 576 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1990)
Kayle v. Kayle
565 A.2d 1069 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1989)
Johnson v. Bradbury
558 A.2d 61 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1989)
Johns v. Johns
506 A.2d 854 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1985)
Newburgh v. Arrigo
443 A.2d 1031 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1982)
Colantoni v. Colantoni
281 A.2d 662 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1971)
Grotsky v. Grotsky
277 A.2d 535 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1971)
Khalaf v. Khalaf
275 A.2d 132 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1971)