State v. Wittenberg

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Wittenberg

141 A.2d 57, 26 N.J. 576, 1958 N.J. LEXIS 274

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 28, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 141 A.2d 57 (State v. Wittenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Wittenberg, 141 A.2d 57, 26 N.J. 576, 1958 N.J. LEXIS 274 (N.J. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed for the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion of the Appellate Division reported in 50 N. J. Super. 74 (1957).

At the oral argument before us, appellants suggested that at the de novo appeal in the County Court, they were improperly precluded from offering certain factual proof bearing upon the issue of the constitutionality of the ordinance, because the court took the erroneous view that the determination in the declaratory judgment action had settled the problem of conflict with the organic law. Examination of the record satisfies us that there was no adequate offer of any such proof. Eor this reason, as well as those set forth in the opinion below, we agree that no basis is presented for reversal.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Hehee, Wacheneeld, Bueling, Jacobs, Eeancis and Peoctoe—7.

For reversal—None.

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

Pee Cueiam.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed for the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion of the Appellate Division reported in 50 N. J. Super. 74 (1957).

At the oral argument before us, appellants suggested that at the de novo appeal in the County Court, they were improperly precluded from offering certain factual proof bearing upon the issue of the constitutionality of the ordinance, because the court took the erroneous view that the determination in the declaratory judgment action had settled the problem of conflict with the organic law. Examination of the record satisfies us that there was no adequate offer of any such proof. Eor this reason, as well as those set forth in the opinion below, we agree that no basis is presented for reversal.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Hehee, Wacheneeld, Bueling, Jacobs, Eeancis and Peoctoe—7.

For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.2d 57, 26 N.J. 576, 1958 N.J. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wittenberg-nj-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack