Legal Opinion

Schock v. Board of Review

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 7, 1966PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered

2Per curiam

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Kilkenny for the majority of the Appellate Division. 89 N. J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 1965). See also: Sarja v. Iron Range Resources & Rehabilitation, Minn., 144 N. W. 2d 377 (1966).

The Chief Justice and Justices Jacobs and Proctor dissent and vote to reverse for the reasons expressed in the dissent of Judge Conford in the Appellate Division.

For affirmance — Justices Francis, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 4.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs and Proctor — 3.

3Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sarja v. Iron Range Resources & RehabilitationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966

4Cited by12 opinions

  1. Brady v. Board of ReviewSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
  2. Yardville Supply Co. v. Board of Review, Dept. of LaborSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
  3. Perryman v. BibleCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1983
  4. Department of Labor and Industry v. SmallsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1977
  5. Gerber v. Board of ReviewNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1998

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