Opinion · Njlaw New Jersey

STATE v. CORTESE, 104 N.J.L. 447 (1927)

STATE OF N.J., DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MICHAEL CORTESE, PLAINTIFF INERROR., 139 A. 923 (Ct. Err. & App. 1927)

Type
Opinion
Court
Njlaw New Jersey
Jurisdiction
Njlaw
Date
1927-12-15
Topic
general

STATE v. CORTESE, 104 N.J.L. 447 (1927) 139 A. 923 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MICHAEL CORTESE, PLAINTIFF INERROR.Court of Errors and Appeals.Argued October 27, 1927 — Decided December 15, 1927. On error to the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in4 N.J. Mis.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. CORTESE, 104 N.J.L. 447 (1927). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. CORTESE,104 N.J.L. 447(1927)
139 A. 923
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MICHAEL CORTESE, PLAINTIFF IN
ERROR.
Court of Errors and Appeals.
Argued October 27, 1927 —
Decided December 15, 1927.
On error to the Supreme Court, whoseper curiamis printed in4 N.J. Mis. R. 683.
For the defendant in error,Joseph L. Smith.

For the plaintiff in error,Harold Simandl.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the Supreme Court.For affirmance— TRENCHARD, MINTURN, BLACK, KATZENBACH, LLOYD, VAN BUSKIRK, McGLENNON, KAYS, HETFIELD, DEAR, JJ. 10.For reversal— None.Page 448