State v. Rucker
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
| Citation | 25 N.J. 102,135 A.2d 59 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John RUCKER, Defendant-Petitioner. |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1957 |
On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
See same case below: 46 N.J.Super. 162, 134 A.2d 409.
Leyden & Monaghan, Hackensack, for the petitioner.
Guy W. Calissi, Hackensack, and William C. Brudnick, River Edge, for the respondent.
Denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
20 cases
-
Grundlehner v. Dangler
......892, 71 S.Ct. 208, 95 L.Ed. 647 (1950); Note, 'Nonconforming Uses: A Rationale and an Approach,' 102 U.Pa.L.Rev. 91 (1953). In our State there have been no such legislative steps (United Advertising Corp. v. Borough of Raritan, 11 N.J. 144, 152, 93 A.2d 362 (1952)) and our courts have ......
-
State v. Odom
...... See, e.g., State v. Morton, supra, 74 N.J.Super. at 531-32, 181 A.2d 785 (police officer in drunk-driving case allowed to testify that defendant was under the influence of alcohol); State v. Rucker, 46 N.J.Super 162, 166, 134 A.2d 409 (App.Div.) (police experts in gambling prosecution allowed to testify as experts that certain papers were for use in a lottery), certif. denied, 25 N.J. 102 (1987); State v. Smith, 21 N.J. 326, 334, 121 A.2d 729 (1956) (same); State v. Arthur, 70 N.J.L. 425, ......
-
State v. Davis
...... It is a basic general principle that a criminal statute is to be strictly construed. State v. Rucker, 46 N.J.Super. 162, 167, 134 A.2d 409 (App.Div.1957), certif. den. 25 N.J. 102, 135 A.2d 59 (1957). The words in a statute are to be given their ordinary and well understood meaning in the absence of any explicit indication of a special meaning. Lopez v. Santiago, 125 N.J.Super. 268, 270, 310 ......
- Medici v. BPR Co.
Request a trial to view additional results