Waterman v. Taub
131 A. 924, 102 N.J.L. 472, 1926 N.J. LEXIS 202
This text of 131 A. 924 (Waterman v. Taub) 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
Waterman v. Taub, 131 A. 924, 102 N.J.L. 472, 1926 N.J. LEXIS 202 (N.J. 1926).
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, White, Gardner, Van Buskirk, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Loeffler v. Roe
69 So. 2d 331 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
131 A. 924, 102 N.J.L. 472, 1926 N.J. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterman-v-taub-nj-1926.