Legal Opinion
Steneken v. Steneken
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided May 18, 2005PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court 1
873 A.2d 501 (2005)
183 N.J. 290
Marilyn A. STENEKEN, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Gary L. STENEKEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued November 9, 2004.
Decided May 18, 2005.
Todd M. Sahner, Roseland, argued the cause for appellant (Marcus, Brody, Kessler, Sahner & Weinstein, attorneys).
Bonnie C. Frost, Denville, argued the cause for respondent (Einhorn, Harris, Ascher, Barbarito, Frost & Ironson, attorneys).
2Opinion of the Court · Rivera-SotoJustice Rivera-Soto
This appeal requires that we address whether, in setting an award of alimony and in establishing equitable distribution in respect of a closely-held corporation, the trial…
Also in this document: Dissent.
3Cases cited20 opinions
- In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. CookWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997
- Lepis v. LepisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
- Rothman v. RothmanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1974
- Painter v. PainterSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1974
- McSparron v. McSparronNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by1 opinion
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2005