Legal Opinion
Barber v. Hohl
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided June 27, 1956PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
40 N.J. Super. 526 (1956)
123 A.2d 785
THEODORE R. BARBER, ET UX, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
HENRY D. HOHL, ET UX, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued June 18, 1956.
Decided June 27, 1956.
Before Judges GOLDMANN, FREUND and CONFORD.
Mr. Vincent A. Grasso argued the cause for defendants-appellants (Messrs. Hiering & Grasso, attorneys).
Mr. Julius Robinson argued the cause for plaintiffs-respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by CONFORD, J.A.D.
We first call attention to the unqualified endorsement of consent at the foot of the judgment under review…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Sattelberger v. TelepSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1954
- Wardman-Justice Motors, Inc. v. PetrieCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1930
- Spiegel v. Evergreen Cemetery Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
- Fauver v. WilkoskeMontana Supreme Court · 1949
- Lyons v. St. Joseph Belt Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1937
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Basista v. WeirCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
- Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & BonelloSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Haskins v. SheldenAlaska Supreme Court · 1976
- Glenside West Corp. v. Exxon Co., USADistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1991
- Winkler v. Hartford Acc. and Ind. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.