State v. Lanish
253 A.2d 545, 54 N.J. 93, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 461
Opinion
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Sullivan in the Appellate Division, 103 N. J. Super. 441.
For affirmanc e — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman. — 7.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Lanish, 253 A.2d 545, 54 N.J. 93, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 461 (N.J. 1969).
253 A.2d 545 (State v. Lanish) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State of New Jersey v. Gale Sorensen
110 A.3d 97 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2015)
State v. Kent
918 A.2d 626 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2007)
State v. DeLuca
506 A.2d 55 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1986)
State v. Sweeney
464 A.2d 1150 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1983)
State v. Dively
458 A.2d 502 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1983)
State v. Gonzalez
453 A.2d 297 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1982)
State v. Roenicke
417 A.2d 54 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1980)
State v. Tropea
394 A.2d 355 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1978)
State v. Kraft
341 A.2d 373 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1975)
State v. Higgins
332 A.2d 220 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1975)
State v. Ryan
334 A.2d 402 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1975)
State v. Sheppard
310 A.2d 731 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1973)
Bor. of Roselle v. Santone Const. Co., Inc.
291 A.2d 385 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1972)