Legal Opinion
Katz v. Eldredge
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided February 2, 1922PublishedCited by 13 opinions
On error 4n Katz case, and appeals in the Carell and Sinisi cases, from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 96 N. J. L. 382.
1Opinion of the Court
Walker, Chancellor
(for reversal). I come at once to the point as to whether or not the Van Ness act is invalid, in that it violates the mandate of the constitution of 1844 that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, which counsel terms the fundamental question. Our constitutional provision (article 1, section 7) is:
“The right of a trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but the legislature may authorize the trial of civil suits, when the matter in dispute does not exceed fifty dollars, by a jury of six men.”
In the constitution of 1776, we find this provision (article 22, section 7) :
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ex Parte WilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Moore v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- National Prohibition CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Williams v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. HammSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
- Boyd v. County of DadeSupreme Court of Florida · 1960
- United States v. WoodsDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1978
- City of Gainesville v. HilliardDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
- Cruikshank v. DuffieldWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.