Smith v. Borough of Barnegat Light
529 A.2d 1000, 219 N.J. Super. 11, 1987 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1243
Opinion
This matter comes before us by way of appellants’ motion for a stay pending appeal. By separate order we have denied that motion. .We have accelerated the appeal for purposes of argument and disposition because it involves an election matter. See R. 1:2—5(1).
On our own motion we summarily affirm the judgment below substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Serpentelli in [12]*12his written opinion of June 4, 1987, reported at 219 N.J.Super. 231 (Law Div.1987). See R. 2:8-3(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. Borough of Barnegat Light, 529 A.2d 1000, 219 N.J. Super. 11, 1987 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1243 (N.J. Ct. App. 1987).
529 A.2d 1000 (Smith v. Borough of Barnegat Light) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EAST NEWARK, ETC. VS. KEVIN D. HARRIS (L-1134-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2021
Booker v. Rice
71 A.3d 206 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2013)
Patterson v. Cooper
682 A.2d 266 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1994)
Shalita v. Township of Washington
636 A.2d 568 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1994)
Brubaker v. Ship Bottom Bor.
586 A.2d 867 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1990)
State v. Hurtado
529 A.2d 1000 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1987)