Legal Opinion

Continos v. Parsekian

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided May 24, 1961PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

68 N.J. Super. 54 (1961)

171 A.2d 663

CONSTANTINOS CONTINOS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

NED J. PARSEKIAN, ACTING DIRECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued March 13, 1961.

Decided May 24, 1961.

Before Judges PRICE, GAULKIN and SULLIVAN.

Mr. Joseph E. Zavesky argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (Messrs. Mead, Gleeson, Hansen & Pantages, attorneys; Mr. Zavesky, on the brief).

Mrs. Annamay T. Sheppard argued the cause for defendant-respondent (Mr. William O. Barnes, Jr., attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by PRICE, S.J.A.D.

Plai…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Giles v. GassertSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1956
  2. Kurilla Ex Rel. Kurilla v. RothSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1944
  3. Collins v. YanceyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
  4. Cromwell v. NeeldNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951
  5. Tinsman v. ParsekianNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Maddy v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
  2. Miller v. US Fidel. & Guar. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
  3. Arizona Real Estate Department v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
  4. Wenzel v. Zantop Air Transport, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967
  5. Caballero v. MartinezSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2006

6 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