State of N.J. v. Linarducci
| Decision Date | 22 September 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 17.,17. |
| Citation | 8 A.2d 576,123 N.J.L. 228 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Defendant In Error v. Joseph LINARDUCCI, Jr., Plaintiff In Error. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Supreme Court.
J. Henry Harrison and Samuel I. Kessler, both of Newark, for plaintiff in error.
William A. Wachenfeld, Pros, of Pleas, of Newark, and Anthony M. Hauck, Jr., of Clinton, for the State.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered Per Curiam in the Supreme Court reported at 122 N.J.L. 137, 3 A.2d 796.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, Justices PARKER, CASE, DONGES, PERSKIE, and PORTER, and Judges HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, and HAGUE—12.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
7 cases
-
State v. Milligan
...o.b. 127 N.J.L. 564, 23 A.2d 409 (E. & A. 1942); State v. Linarducci, 122 N.J.L. 137, 3 A.2d 796 (Sup.Ct.1939), aff'd o.b. 123 N.J.L. 228, 8 A.2d 576 (E. & A. 1939). In the recently-decided State v. Potts defendant was allegedly intoxicated when he drove his vehicle through a stop sign that......
-
State v. Fay
...N.J.L. 546, 120 A. 40; State v. Tomaini, 118 N.J.L. 162, 191 A. 870; State v. Limarducci, 122 N.J.L. 137, 144, 3 A.2d 796, affirmed 123 N.J.L. 228, 8 A.2d 576. The test is whether the verdict is such as to give rise to the inference that it was the "result of mistake, passion, prejudice, or......
-
State v. Monia
...sphere. State v. Woodworth, 121 N.J.L. 78, 90, 91, 1 A.2d 254; State v. Linarducci, 122 N.J.L. 137, 144, 3 A.2d 796, affirmed 123 N.J.L. 228, 8 A.2d 576; State v. Cox, supra. No such injustice is made to appear. The judgment is affirmed with ...
-
State v. Oliver
...of the relatively recent informational decisions are State v. Linarducci, 122 N.J.L. 137, 3 A.2d 796 (Sup.Ct.1939), affirmed 123 N.J.L. 228, 8 A.2d 576 (E. & A.1939); In re Lewis, 11 N.J. 217, 94 A.2d 328 (1953); State v. Gooze, 14 N.J.Super. 277, 81 A.2d 811 (App.Div.1951); State v. Shoopm......
Request a trial to view additional results