Legal Opinion

In Re Megill

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Decided February 28, 1933PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This matter is of such importance to the court and the public in general — it is so unusual in its nature — that it cannot be passed over in silence, nor can it be passed upon except in such manner as will inform the public generally of the position which the court must of necessity take in matters of this kind.

I have prepared a statement, which I propose to make now, in connection with this affair. That statement was prepared in the hope that it will be sufficiently informative to the general public, and to these men, in particular, and as an admonition to the bar of this county and the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dorrian v. DavisNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1929
  2. Spark v. La Reine Hotel Corp.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
  3. In Re RiesNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1927
  4. In Re StegmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932
  5. In Re GlaubermanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1930

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. In Re CarubaNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1947
  2. In Re BozorthNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
  3. State v. GussmanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
  4. State v. JonesNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1969
  5. Village of Ridgefield Park v. Bergen Cty. Bd. of TaxationNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API