Friedman v. Keil
Supreme Court of New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Ctjeiam.
The decree under review should be affirmed.
This case involves no complicated question of law. It is largely one of fact. Appellant’s counsel complains that the vice-chancellor erroneously found as a fact that “the neighborhood in which the parties reside and in which the defendant’s business is conducted is almost entirely residential, except for a few stores and the defendant’s bakery;” whereas the facts clearly show (says appellant) that the neighborhood is zoned for business and that Hawthorne avenue (the street upon which defendant’s bakery is located) is a busy retain…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Muehlman v. KeilmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1971
- Warren Company v. DicksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- State v. New York Central Railroad Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
- Watts v. Pama Manufacturing CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Maasen v. ShawMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.