Sexton v. Essex County Ritualarium

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Sexton v. Essex County Ritualarium

91 A.2d 162, 21 N.J. Super. 329

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedSeptember 10, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 A.2d 162 (Sexton v. Essex County Ritualarium) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sexton v. Essex County Ritualarium, 91 A.2d 162, 21 N.J. Super. 329 (N.J. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

21 N.J. Super. 329 (1952) 91 A.2d 162

ISAAC JOSEPH SEXTON, PHILIP BLUME, ISIDORE MILLER, JOSEPH MILLER, LOUIS HEYMAN, DEBORAH RUBIN, VICTOR R. LEVEY, MARY B. LEVEY, HIS WIFE, FRED N. NICOLACOPULOS AND ANNA GRANT, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
ESSEX COUNTY RITUALARIUM, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, AND ESSEX COUNTY RITUALARIUM SYNAGOGUE, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued September 8, 1952. Decided September 10, 1952.

Before Judges JAYNE, PROCTOR, and SCHETTINO.

Mr. Harry Green argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Hodes & Hodes, attorneys; Mr. William Hodes).

Mr. Bernard Freedman argued the cause for respondents (Messrs. Koehler, Augenblick & Freedman, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Ewart in Sexton v. Bates, 17 N.J. Super. 246 (Law Div. 1951).

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