Legal Opinion
Brinkmann v. Urban Realty Co., Inc.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided June 16, 1952PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Jacobs, J.
The Appellate Division in Brinkmann v. Urban Realty Co., Inc., 15 N. J. Super. 354 (1951) affirmed the Law Division’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ action at the close of their case and this court granted certification pursuant to application under Rule 1:5-3.
The defendant and mortgagor, Teaneck Gardens, Inc., constructed apartments which were financed by a mortgage insured under the National Housing Act (12 U. S. C. A., § 1101). Regulations duly promulgated by the Federal Housing Administrator pursuant to the act provided that the mortgagor…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Steele v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Porter v. Warner Holding Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Texas & NOR Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. & Steamship ClerksSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- United States v. BabcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- United States v. EmorySupreme Court of the United States · 1941
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- In Re an Increase in Fees by the New Jersey State Board of DentistrySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Choy v. Farragut Gardens 1, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Zigas v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Peñagarícano v. Tribunal Superior de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1960
- Slocum v. BELMAR. BOR.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1989
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.