State v. Lotegano

173 A. 136, 113 N.J.L. 176, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 354
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 21, 1934·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Memorandum by

Parker, J.

The case is submitted on briefs. The brief for plaintiff in error bears the name of a member of the bar who is a counselor-at-law, but who signs simply as attorney of record. Apart from this, we have not found it necessary, nor indeed possible, to go into the merits, because the case does not show any judgment of the Supreme Court, nor any writ of error out of this court, nor any assignment of error in this court.

Consequently there is nothing for us to review; and the writ of error — if there be one — is accordingly dismissed.

For dismissal — The Chancellor, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 12.

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

State v. Lotegano, 173 A. 136, 113 N.J.L. 176, 1934 N.J. LEXIS 354 (N.J. 1934).

173 A. 136 (State v. Lotegano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Rodriguez
603 A.2d 536 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
State v. Smith
169 A.2d 482 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1961)