Schock v. Board of Review

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Schock v. Board of Review

223 A.2d 633, 48 N.J. 121, 1966 N.J. LEXIS 153

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 7, 1966·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Kilkenny for the majority of the Appellate Division. 89 N. J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 1965). See also: Sarja v. Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation, Minn., 144 N. W. 2d 377 (1966).

The Chief Justice and Justices Jacobs and Proctor dissent and vote to reverse for the reasons expressed in the dissent of Judge Conford in the Appellate Division.

For affirmance — Justices Francis, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 4.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs and Proctor — 3.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Kilkenny for the majority of the Appellate Division. 89 N. J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 1965). See also: Sarja v. Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation, Minn., 144 N. W. 2d 377 (1966).

The Chief Justice and Justices Jacobs and Proctor dissent and vote to reverse for the reasons expressed in the dissent of Judge Conford in the Appellate Division.

For affirmance — Justices Francis, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 4.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs and Proctor — 3.

Schock v. Board of Review, 223 A.2d 633, 48 N.J. 121, 1966 N.J. LEXIS 153 (N.J. 1966).

Pincite

223 A.2d 633 (Schock v. Board of Review) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related