S.C. v. A.C.
Decision Date | 03 May 1974 |
Citation | 128 N.J.Super. 198,319 A.2d 733 |
Parties | S.C., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.C., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.
Monroe Ackerman, Short Hills, for defendant-appellant(Rudd & Ackerman, Short Hills, attorneys; Charles E. Carlson, Jr., Newton, on the brief).
Everett M. Scherer, Newark, for plaintiff-respondent(Riker, Danzig, Scherer & Brown, Newark, attorneys; Thomas C. C. Humick, Newark, on the brief).
Before Judges CARTON, LORA and SEIDMAN.
The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the written opinion of Judge Consodine reported at 123 N.J.Super. 566, 304 A.2d 202(Ch.Div.1973).
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day 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

Start Your 3-day 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

Start Your 3-day 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

Start Your 3-day 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

Start Your 3-day 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

Start Your 7-day Trial
- State v. Finkle
-
Stern v. Stern
...property pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34--23. 123 N.J.Super. 566, 304 A.2d 202 (Ch.Div.1973). 1 The Appellate Division affirmed. 128 N.J.Super. 198, 319 A.2d 733 (1974). We granted certification at the instance of the defendant. 65 N.J. 568, 325 A.2d 702 There is no challenge to the grant of a d......
- S.C. v. A.C.