Stephens v. Commissioners of Palisades Interstate Park
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following memorandum was filed by Mr. Justice Parker: “The action is for negligence.
Read the full summary
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following memorandum was filed by Mr. Justice Parker: “The action is for negligence. As I recollect the complaint, which at this writing is not before me, plaintiff’s intestate is claimed to have sustained fatal injuries by reason of the defective condition of a pathway in the Palisades Interstate Park, under the control of the defendant corporation, and plaintiff alleges that such condition was due to defendant’s negligence. The answer set up, among other things, that conceding this, no legal liability therefor rested on tire defendant;…
1Per curiam
The judgment under review herein should be affirme’d, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 14.
For reversal — Hone.
2Cited by13 opinions
- Rauschan v. State Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Howell v. Port of New York AuthorityDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1940
- Casale v. Housing Authority, City of NewarkNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
- Caporossi v. Atlantic City, New JerseyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1963
- The OnteoraDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1923
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.