Vedutis v. SO. PLAINFIELD BD. OF ED.
This text of 362 A.2d 51 (Vedutis v. SO. PLAINFIELD BD. OF ED.) 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.
Opinion
DONNA VEDUTIS, AN INFANT BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ROBERT VEDUTIS AND ROBERT VEDUTIS, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
SOUTH PLAINFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
*493 Before Judges KOLE, ARD and E. GAULKIN.
Mr. Robert F. Colquhoun, attorney for the appellant.
Messrs. Mulligan & Altman, attorneys for the respondents.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Law Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Demos, which was approved in Rost v. Fair Lawn Bd. of Ed., 137 N.J. Super. 76 (App. Div. 1975).
In view of our disposition of the matter, we need not consider the issue of informal or substantial compliance which was also raised on this appeal.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
362 A.2d 51, 142 N.J. Super. 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vedutis-v-so-plainfield-bd-of-ed-njsuperctappdiv-1976.