Opinion · New Jersey Superior Court
Romanowski v. Township of Brick
192 N.J. Super. 79
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- New Jersey Superior Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
- Date
- 1983-11-22
- Topic
- litigation
PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Havey in his opinion of February 8, 1982. 185 N.J.Super. 197 (Law Div.1982). Affirmed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Romanowski v. Township of Brick. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 1 opinion
JEFFREY ROMANOWSKI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF BRICK, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE IN LAW, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND ROBERT FORRESTER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF BRICK, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE IN LAW, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Submitted September 19, 1983. Decided November 22, 1983.Before Judges ARD, MORTON I. GREENBERG and TRAUTWEIN.
*80 Russo, Courtney & Foster, for appellant Township of Brick (Joseph L. Foster on the brief).
Shebell & Schibell, for respondent Jeffrey Romanowski (Raymond P. Shebell on the brief).
Novins, Farley, Grossman & York, for respondent Robert Forrester (Kenneth R. Pentony on the brief).
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Havey in his opinion of February 8, 1982. 185 N.J. Super. 197 (Law Div. 1982).
Affirmed.