State v. Maure
588 A.2d 383, 123 N.J. 457, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 30
Opinion
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Baime’s opinion for the Appellate Division, reported at 240 N.J.Super. 269, 573 A. 2d 186 (1990).
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.
Opposed — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Maure, 588 A.2d 383, 123 N.J. 457, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 30 (N.J. 1991).
588 A.2d 383 (State v. Maure) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Holland
32 A.3d 571 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2011)
State v. Popovich
964 A.2d 804 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2009)
State v. Godshalk
885 A.2d 969 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2005)
Bullet Hole, Inc. v. Dunbar
763 A.2d 295 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2000)
State v. Garthe
678 A.2d 153 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1996)
State v. Slinger
658 A.2d 1299 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1995)
State v. Giordano
656 A.2d 1276 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1995)
State v. Benas
657 A.2d 445 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1995)
State v. Sandstrom
649 A.2d 901 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1994)
State v. Gosa
623 A.2d 301 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1993)
People v. Uruburu
169 A.D.2d 20 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
NEW JERSEY DEP v. Duran
596 A.2d 1090 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1991)
State v. Thoresen
598 A.2d 873 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1991)