Legal Opinion

Cadgene v. Cadgene

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided April 25, 1940PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court, with this added observation — that Judge Barbour, in support of his conclusions in the instant case, quoted from the opinion of the Hew York Supreme Court (Erie county) in Boehringer v. Schmid, 133 N. Y. Misc. Rep. 236; 232 N. Y. Supp. 360. It may be worthy to note that the judgment of the Hew York Supreme Court in that case was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Hew York in a per curiam opinion reported in 254 N. Y. 355; 173 N. E. Rep. 220.

For affirmance — The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Boehringer v. SchmidNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
  2. Boehringer v. SchmidNew York Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Woods v. BromleyNevada Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Capital Finance Co. of Delaware Valley, Inc. v. AsterbadiNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API