Vedutis v. SO. PLAINFIELD BD. OF ED.

362 A.2d 51, 142 N.J. Super. 492
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided June 15, 1976·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

142 N.J. Super. 492 (1976)
362 A.2d 51

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.

Submitted June 7, 1976.
Decided June 15, 1976.

*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

Vedutis v. SO. PLAINFIELD BD. OF ED., 362 A.2d 51, 142 N.J. Super. 492 (N.J. Ct. App. 1976).

362 A.2d 51 (Vedutis v. SO. PLAINFIELD BD. OF ED.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. National Car Rental System, Inc.
541 A.2d 1125 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1988)
Navarro v. Rodriguez
495 A.2d 476 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1984)