Rossi v. Borough of Haddonfield
702 A.2d 1285, 152 N.J. 43, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 543
Opinion
The judgment is.affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Shebell’s opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 297 N.J.Super. 494, 688 A.2d 643 (1997).
For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN — 7.
Opposed — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rossi v. Borough of Haddonfield, 702 A.2d 1285, 152 N.J. 43, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 543 (N.J. 1997).
702 A.2d 1285 (Rossi v. Borough of Haddonfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
MILDRED MOLINO VS. TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE (L-7182-14, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2018
O'Connell v. Nj Sports & Expo. Auth.
766 A.2d 786 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2001)
Gerber v. Springfield Bd. of Educ.
744 A.2d 670 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2000)
Sykes v. Rutgers
705 A.2d 1241 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1998)
Lathers v. Township of West Windsor
705 A.2d 1259 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1998)