Gilday v. Hauchwit, A--61
| Decision Date | 20 February 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. A--61,A--61 |
| Citation | 48 N.J. 557,226 A.2d 834 |
| Parties | Elsie GILDAY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lucille L. HAUCHWIT, Defendant, and Alfred G. Hauchwit, Defendant-Respondent, and Peter Carlo, Defendant-Appellant, and The Board of Commissioners, etc., Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
A. Leo Bohl, Paterson, for appellant.
John W. Hand, Paterson, for respondent (Evans, Hand, Evans, Allabough & Amoresano, Paterson, attorneys, Brian J. McGrievy, Paterson, on the brief).
The judgment as to the defendant Carlo is reversed for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Gaulkin and the matter is remanded to the Passaic County Court with directions to enter judgment in favor of said defendant.
For reversal: Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN--6.
For affirmance: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
8 cases
-
Butler v. Acme Markets, Inc.
...and obtaining their concurrence. Gilday v. Hauchwit, 91 N.J.Super. 233, 219 A.2d 873 (App.Div.1966), rev'd on other grounds, 48 N.J. 557, 226 A.2d 834 (1967). As to the absence of expert testimony, except for malpractice cases, there is no general rule or policy requiring expert testimony a......
-
Kent v. Hudson County
... ... Gilday v. Hauchwit, 91 N.J.Super. 233, 249, 219 A.2d 873 (App.Div.1966), reversed in part on other grounds ... ...
-
Kassick v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp.
... ... Gilday v. Hauchwit, 91 N.J.Super. 233, 238, 219 A.2d 873 (App.Div.1966), rev'd on other grounds, 48 N.J ... ...
-
Steward v. Borough of Magnolia
... ... 258, 262, 172 A.2d 203 (App.Div.1961), certif. den. 36 N.J. 144, 174 A.2d 927 (1961); Gilday v. Hauchwit, 91 N.J.Super. 233, 242, 219 A.2d 873 (App.Div.1966), mod. 48 N.J. 557, 226 A.2d 834 ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results