27 N.J. Super. 279
99 A.2d 377
MARY ANN EBERLE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOSEPH SOMONEK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · decided 1953-09-23
Relies on 24 N.J. Super. 366 - Eberle v. Somonek
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1953-09-23
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2018
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1Before Judges EASTWOOD, JAYNE and FRANCIS.
¶2Mr. John VR. Strong argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Strong & Strong, attorneys).
¶3Mr. Baruch S. Seidman argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Burton & Seidman, attorneys).
¶4The opinion of the court was delivered PER CURIAM.
¶5The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Ewart reported in 24 N.J. Super. 366 (Ch. 1953).