Gaido v. Weiser
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Per curiam
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the “plain error” reason expressed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division. We agree that “[t]o now reverse this judgment because the trial court on its own did not define proximate cause in terms of ‘substantial possibility’, * * * would also offend fundamentally sound principles of appellate review and would be ‘manifestly unfair to the defendant ... to say nothing of the trial judge.’ ” 227 N.J.Super. 175, 201 (1988) (quoting Rochinsky v. State, 110 N.J. 399, 431 (1988) (Clifford, J., dissenting)).
As the majority of the Appellate…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rochinsky v. State of NJ, Dept. of Transp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
- In Re SternSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1953
- Ford v. ReichertSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
- Gaido v. WeiserNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988
3Cited by32 opinions
- Conklin v. WeismanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
- Lanzet v. GreenbergSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
- Reed v. BinderDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- State v. JamersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1998
- BUILD. MATERIALS v. Allstate Ins.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2012
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.