Salisky v. City of Garfield

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Salisky v. City of Garfield

39 A.2d 70, 132 N.J.L. 144, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 231

DecidedSeptember 14, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.2d 70 (Salisky v. City of Garfield) 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

Salisky v. City of Garfield, 39 A.2d 70, 132 N.J.L. 144, 1944 N.J. LEXIS 231 (N.J. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Porter for the Supreme Court.

As respects the questions of fact, there was tangible evidence to support the findings, below; and it is elementary-in our jurisprudence that findings of fact on conflicting evidence, or on uncontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of divergent inferences, are not reviewable on error.

It is also urged that the demotion of the superior officers two ranks instead of to the next rank below contravenes R. 8. 40:11-10.

It was conceded on the oral argument that this point was not raised on the brief submitted by appellant to the Supreme Court (there was no oral argument); and it is therefore not one for the consideration of this court, and we express no opinion respecting it.

Judgment affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chibe Justice, Parker, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Oolie, Dear, Wells, Raeeertx, Hague, Thompson, Dill, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.

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