Bahrey v. Poniatishin
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following per curiam was filed: “This is a slander suit. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals and files eighteen grounds of appeal. The first, fourth, fifth and fifteenth are argued together and refer to evidence admitted showing the reputation for wealth of the defendant. This, we think, is not error.
Read the full summary
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following per curiam was filed: “This is a slander suit. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals and files eighteen grounds of appeal. The first, fourth, fifth and fifteenth are argued together and refer to evidence admitted showing the reputation for wealth of the defendant. This, we think, is not error. The point is settled by the case of Flaadce v. Stratford, 12 X. J. L. 487; Jones Evid., ¶ 159-160.- “The second, erroneously, permitting hearsay testimony. This testimony was stricken out by the court, when…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiaii.
The judgment, under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam in the Supreme Court.
2Cited by12 opinions
- Brett v. Great American Recreation, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
- Skripek v. BergamoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1985
- State v. ParsonsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1964
- State v. SciosciaNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1985
- Fox v. Township of Parsippany-Troy HillsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.