Legal Opinion
Berkowitz v. Haigood
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided March 12, 1992PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
256 N.J. Super. 342 (1992)
606 A.2d 1157
ROBERT G. BERKOWITZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOSEPH HAIGOOD AND JAMES NICHOLS, DEFENDANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Middlesex County.
Decided March 12, 1992.
Robert G. Berkowitz, pro se, Plaintiff.
James Nichols, Esq., pro se, Defendant.
MATHIAS E. RODRIGUEZ, J.S.C.
The plaintiff, Robert G. Berkowitz is a chiropractic doctor, who brought an action against his patient, Joseph Haigood, and his patient's attorney, James Nichols, for the payment of medical bills. Judgment by default has been granted against Mr. Haigood.
Both remaining parties, Dr. Berkowitz…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Di Tolvo v. Di TolvoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
- Russell v. Fred G. Pohl Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1951
- Spilka v. South America Managers, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1969
- Costanzo v. CostanzoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1991
- Burke v. HoffmanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. GandyTexas Supreme Court · 1996
- Kimball Intern. v. Northfield MetalNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000
- Flanders & Medeiros, Inc. v. Elizabeth v. BogosianCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Moore v. WeinbergCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
- Yorgan v. DurkinWisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.