Barber v. Vaccaro

CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court
CitationBarber v. Vaccaro, 111 A.2d 807, 17 N.J. 523 (N.J. 1955)
Decision Date28 February 1955
PartiesArchie BARBER, plaintiff-respondent, v. Arthur A. VACCARO, defendant-petitioner.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.

See same case below: 32 N.J.Super. 573, 108 A.2d 869.

Shaw, Hughes & Pindar, Newark, for the petitioner.

Warren & Stein, Trenton, for the respondent.

Denied.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Gaido v. Weiser
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 29, 1988
    ...79 N.J. 275, 398 A.2d 1283 (1979); Barber v. Vaccaro, 32 N.J.Super. 573, 577-578, 108 A.2d 869 (App.Div.1954), certif. den. 17 N.J. 523, 111 A.2d 807 (1955). Stated simply, based on a careful review of the record, we are convinced that the jury verdict was not a miscarriage of justice under......
  • McDonald v. Mianecki
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 13, 1978
    ...tribunal will not disturb that finding. Barber v. Vaccaro, 32 N.J.Super. 573, 577-578, 108 A.2d 869 (App.Div.1954), certif. den. 17 N.J. 523, 111 A.2d 807 (1955). We have determined that the purchasers' cause of action is based on a breach of implied warranty arising out of their agreement.......
  • Kovacs v. Everett
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • October 5, 1955
    ...& Co., 8 N.J. 602, 86 A.2d 585 (1952); Barber v. Vaccaro, 32 N.J.Super. 573, 108 A.2d 869 (App.Div.1954), certification denied, 17 N.J. 523, 111 A.2d 807 The action of the jury in returning a verdict against plaintiff passenger while finding both drivers negligent carries with it the obviou......
  • Valls v. Paramus Bathing Beach, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • September 20, 1957
    ...19 N.J. 166, 115 A.2d 553 (1955); Barber v. Vaccaro, 32 N.J.Super. 573, 579, 108 A.2d 869 (App.Div.1954), certification denied 17 N.J. 523, 111 A.2d 807 (1955). Upon deliberate consideration of the somewhat divergent representations of the attorneys, the trial judge resolved in the exercise......
  • Get Started for Free