Legal Opinion
Romano v. Kimmelman
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided July 27, 1983PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
POLOW, P.J.A.D.
The seven plaintiffs, all charged with operating motor vehicles while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, instituted this action in the Superior Court alleging that use of “the Breathalyzer 900 and 900A by the State” deprives them and all others similarly situated of due process rights under the United States Constitution and of “rights, privileges and immunities secured by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Thus, for themselves and all others similarly situated, plaintiffs demand an injunction against use of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Quern v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Saving AssociationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Reuben J. Katz, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carte Blanche CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- State v. GonzalezSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1977
- Bonner v. Circuit CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Romano v. KimmelmanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Collins v. Dupont De Nemours & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Collins v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- New Jersey Automobile, Insurance Plan v. SciarraDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Commonwealth v. SmytheMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.