Legal Opinion

Demetro v. PENN. RR

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided February 25, 1966PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

90 N.J. Super. 308 (1966)

217 A.2d 329

DUTCH DEMETRO, ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF RUBY DEMETRO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND ALBERT GRAZIANO, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued February 10, 1966.

Decided February 25, 1966.

Before Judges GAULKIN, LABRECQUE and BROWN.

Mr. Paul E. Anderson argued the cause for the appellant (Messrs. Kovacs, Anderson, Horowitz & Rader, attorneys).

Mr. Andre W. Gruber argued the cause for the respondents (Messrs. Strong & Strong, attorneys).

2Per curiam

Ruby Demetro, aged 11,…

3Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Becker v. L. & N. R. R.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1901
  2. Seipel v. SevekSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
  3. Tedesco v. Reading CompanySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  4. Seipel v. SevekNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
  5. Pennsylvania R. v. LacknerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1917

4Cited by12 opinions

  1. Renz v. Penn Central Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  2. Henneman v. McCallaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1967
  3. Eyrich for Eyrich v. DamNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
  4. Eden v. ConrailNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1980
  5. Harrison v. Middlesex Water CompanyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978

7 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