State v. Graziani
| Decision Date | 22 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. A--79,A--79 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Ernest GRAZIANI et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinions are reported at 60 N.J.Super. 1, ---A.2d ---.
John E. Toolan, Perth Amboy, and Sam Denstman, Newark, for appellants (Toolan, Haney & Romond, Perth Amboy, attorneys).
Sanford M. Jaffe, Newark, for respondent (Brendan T. Byrne, Newark, attorney).
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of Judge Freund in the court below.
For affirmance: Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices BURLING, JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL and SCHETTINO--7.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
26 cases
-
State v. Stefanelli
... ... The ignorance of defendants as to how the conspiracy was hatched and of Cicala's initiating role or expectations in no way alters their own criminal responsibility. State v. Carbone, supra; State v. Graziani, 60 N.J.Super. 1, 18, 158 A.2d 375 (App.Div.1959), aff'd o. b. 31 N.J. 538, 158 A.2d 330 Cert. den. 363 U.S. 830, 80 S.Ct. 1601, 4 L.Ed.2d 1524 (1960). Nor does the fact that Cicala had no personal knowledge of the outcome of his plan or of the identities of the persons who later executed ... ...
-
State v. Fiorello
... ... Bulna, 46 N.J.Super. 313, 317, 134 A.2d 738 (App.Div.1957), affirmed, 27 N.J. 93, 141 A.2d 529 (1958)) 1 and has been abandoned in recent opinions by our courts. See State v. Goodman, 9 N.J. 569, 581, 89 A.2d 243 (1952); State v. Dancyger, supra, 29 N.J. at p. 84, 148 A.2d 155; State v. Graziani, 60 N.J.Super. 1, 13, 158 A.2d 375 (App.Div.1959), affirmed, 31 N.J. 538, 158 A.2d 330 (1960), certiorari denied, 363 U.S. 830, 80 S.Ct. 1601, 4 L.Ed.2d 1524 (1960); State v. Hall, 55 N.J.Super. 441, 447, 151 A.2d 1 (App.Div.1959) ... In Goodman, supra, the defendants were ... ...
-
State v. Smith
... ... 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965); Estes v. State of Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) ... The proceedings of the grand jury are presumed valid unless proof is submitted to the court which rebuts this presumption. State v. Graziani, 60 N.J.Super. 1, 158 A.2d 375 (App.Div.1959), affirmed 31 N.J. 538, 158 A.2d 330 (1960). In the case at bar there has been no indication to the court that the grand jury proceedings in question were not conducted in the usual solemn manner. Likewise, there has been no evidence presented to the ... ...
-
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Ins. Co.
... ... See ... Page 488 ... Werner Indus., Inc. v. First State Ins. Co., 112 N.J. 30, 38, 548 A.2d 188 (1988). The knowledge and sophistication of an insured may be a factor in determining whether an insurance ... 140 (E. & A.1922). There is an exception to this general rule where both business entities are close corporations. See State v. Graziani, 60 N.J.Super. 1, 17, 158 A.2d 375 (App.Div.1959), aff'd, 31 N.J. 538, 158 A.2d 330, cert. [625 A.2d 31] denied, 363 U.S. 830, 80 S.Ct. 1601, 4 ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results