Home/New Jersey Superior Court App Division/State v. Mundy

State v. Mundy

273 A.2d 617, 113 N.J. Super. 301
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJanuary 14, 1971
StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.2d 617 (State v. Mundy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Mundy, 273 A.2d 617, 113 N.J. Super. 301 (N.J. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

113 N.J. Super. 301 (1971)
273 A.2d 617

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MELINDA E. MUNDY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued January 5, 1971.
Decided January 14, 1971.

Before Judges LEWIS, MATTHEWS and MINTZ.

Mr. Sherwood H. Mundy argued the cause for appellant.

Mr. Peter A. DeSarno, Special Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Clinton E. Cronin, Acting Prosecutor of Middlesex County, attorney).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment below is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Bachman for the Middlesex County Court, 113 N.J. Super. 308.

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

Related

State v. Mundy
273 A.2d 620 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1970)
State v. Mundy
273 A.2d 617 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 A.2d 617, 113 N.J. Super. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mundy-njsuperctappdiv-1971.