Campbell v. Schlaifer
Decision Date | 24 May 1965 |
Docket Number | M--505,Nos. A,s. A |
Citation | 88 N.J.Super. 66,210 A.2d 781 |
Parties | Marilyn E. CAMPBELL et al., Plaintiffs, v. Louis W. SCHLAIFER et al., Defendants. M.--273, |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Sheldon M. Liebowitz, Englewood, for plaintiffs.
Frederick W. Rose, Newark, for defendants (McCarter & English, Newark, attorneys).
Before Judges GAULKIN, FOLEY and COLLESTER.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
GAULKIN, S.J.A.D.
The trial court suppressed interrogatories served by defendants on plaintiffs as 'oppressive on their face,' and defendants seek leave to appeal.
An examination of the transcript of the argument below reveals that counsel for plaintiffs told the judge that almost identical interrogatories, propounded by defendants' attorneys in another case, had been suppressed by another judge as oppressive, and that we had denied leave to appeal from that action. Based upon this, plaintiffs' counsel argued:
The judge seemed to accept this argument, for he said, when defendants' counsel sought to argue the matter further: The judge did not discuss the merits of the interrogatories or criticize any particular question.
In spite of statements by our courts to the contrary, the idea seems to persist that our denial of leave to appeal indicates our tacit approval of the action sought to be renewed. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Contrary to earlier rules relating to interlocutory appeals, R.R. 2:2--3 gives us unlimited discretion as to whether to deny leave to take such an appeal. We may not grant such leave unless 'the grounds of appeal are substantial,' but we may and frequently do deny it even though the grounds of appeal are substantial, for practical or other reasons which have nothing to do with the merits. As Judge Goldmann said in State v. Hanson, 59 N.J.Super. 434, 440, 157 A.2d 847, 850 (App.Div.1960), certif. denied 32 N.J. 351, 160 A.2d 848 (1960), 'In denying leave the court does not, of course, presume to pass upon the merits of the cause in any respect, * * *.' See also Romano v. Maglio, 41 N.J.Super. 561, 567--568, 125 A.2d 523 (App.Div.1956), certif. denied 22 N.J. 574, 126 A.2d 910 (1956); certiorari denied 353 U.S. 923, 77 S.Ct. 682, 1 L.Ed.2d 720 (1957).
What the United States Supreme Court has said as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lanzet v. Greenberg
...deny interlocutory appeals "for practical or other reasons which have nothing to do with the merits." Campbell v. Schlaifer, 88 N.J.Super. 66, 68, 210 A.2d 781 (App.Div.1965). Thus, the court below did not violate the law-of-the-case doctrine by considering the issue of defendants' liabilit......
-
Devonshire Development Associates v. City of Hackensack
...and are clearly distinguishable. Consequently, on this argument alone Matawan cannot be circumvented. See Campbell v. Schlaifer, 88 N.J.Super. 66, 210 A.2d 781 (App.Div.1965). While a trial court need not necessarily agree with the opinions of appellate tribunals, it cannot disregard them. ......
-
State v. Cutnose
...in the court of intermediate appeal. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Bell, 116 So.2d 617 (Fla.1959); Campbell v. Schlaifer, 88 N.J.Super. 66, 210 A.2d 781 (1965); Fuller v. State of Alabama, 269 Ala. 657, 115 So.2d 118 (1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 936, 80 S.Ct. 380, 4 L.Ed.2d 3......
-
Gero v. Cutler
...v. Hanson, 59 N.J.Super. 434, 440, 157 A.2d 847 (App.Div.), certif. den., 32 N.J. 351, 160 A.2d 848 (1960); Campbell v. Schlaifer, 88 N.J.Super. 66, 68, 210 A.2d 781 (App.Div.1965). See also Romano v. Maglio, 41 N.J.Super. 561, 567--68, 125 A.2d 523 (App.Div.), certif. den., 22 N.J. 574, 12......