Roth v. Brussell

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Roth v. Brussell

147 A. 922, 7 N.J. Misc. 900, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 128

DecidedOctober 16, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A. 922 (Roth v. Brussell) 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

Roth v. Brussell, 147 A. 922, 7 N.J. Misc. 900, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 128 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Curiam.

The plaintiff, Fannie Roth, recovered a verdict in the sum of $700 in an action in tort for personal injuries in the Passaic Circuit Court.

Our examination of the testimony leads us to the conclusion that the verdict of the jury is not against the clear weight of the evidence nor contrary to the charge of the court, or so clearly inadequate as to justify a new trial.

The rule will he dismissed.

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

Pee Curiam.

The plaintiff, Fannie Roth, recovered a verdict in the sum of $700 in an action in tort for personal injuries in the Passaic Circuit Court.

Our examination of the testimony leads us to the conclusion that the verdict of the jury is not against the clear weight of the evidence nor contrary to the charge of the court, or so clearly inadequate as to justify a new trial.

The rule will he dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A. 922, 7 N.J. Misc. 900, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-brussell-nj-1929.