State v. Carrigan
111 A. 927, 94 N.J.L. 566, 1920 N.J. LEXIS 238
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gummere in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance—Swayze, Trenci-iard, Bergen, IIeppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 7.
For reversal—Parker, Kalisch, White, Taylor, JJ. 4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Carrigan, 111 A. 927, 94 N.J.L. 566, 1920 N.J. LEXIS 238 (N.J. 1920).
111 A. 927 (State v. Carrigan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Searcy
798 P.2d 914 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1990)
State v. Todd
474 P.2d 542 (Washington Supreme Court, 1970)
State v. White
142 A.2d 65 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1958)