State v. Pacheco
258 A.2d 368, 54 N.J. 579, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 230
Opinion
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Conford in the Appellate Division, 106 N. J. Super. 540.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weirtraub and Justices Jacobs, Erakcis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Hake-mar — 7.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Pacheco, 258 A.2d 368, 54 N.J. 579, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 230 (N.J. 1969).
258 A.2d 368 (State v. Pacheco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BARTHOLOMEW P. MCINERNEY(08-10-2334, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
163 A.3d 935 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2017)
United States Ex Rel. Coleman v. Hicks
498 F. Supp. 636 (D. New Jersey, 1980)
State v. Molnar
410 A.2d 37 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980)
State v. Molnar
391 A.2d 1225 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1978)
State v. Spivey
300 A.2d 167 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1973)
State v. Pugh
283 A.2d 537 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)
State v. Hale
281 A.2d 106 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)
Williams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
258 A.2d 368 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1969)