Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 N.J. 228

84 A.2d 626

Hughes v. Eisner

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 26, 1951

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1951-11-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“* * * He voices dissatisfaction with the opinion of the Appellate Division. Appeals, however, are taken from judgments and not from opinions. * * *”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including 20 N.J. Super. 85 - R. KREVOLIN & CO., INC. v. Brown, 31 N.J. Super. 193 - Stalford v. Barkalow

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-11-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 5 Cal. App. 4th 1412 - Alling v. Universal Manufacturing Corp. (1992), Marchitto v. Central R. Co. of NJ (1952)

3 district · 45 state decisions

1701951196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

*229 Pee Ctjeiam.

¶1 The appellant, who was successful in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in reversing a judgment of the Chancery Division of that court, appeals here under a claim of right. He voices dissatisfaction with the opinion of the Appellate Division. Appeals, however, are taken from judgments and not from opinions. He also argues strenuously that the denial of costs by the court below constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights. Under our rules costs are not a matter of right but are discretionary, Bule 1:4r-ll made applicable to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court by Buie 4:4-7. The sole basis advanced to establish a right to appeal in the instant case is the alleged existence of constitutional questions, Const., Art. VI, sec. V, par. 1 (a). After studying the brief of the appellant and after listening to his argument we perceive no constitutional questions. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

¶2 For dismissal—Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Case, Hehee, Waoheneeld, Burling and Ackekson—6.

¶3 Opposed—Hone.

/8/nj/228 · .json · Public domain