1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 17 N.J.
  5. 17 N.J. Super. 109 (1951)
 

AMO v. GENOVESE

17 N.J. Super. 109 (1951)

85 A.2d 529

THEODORE AMO, AN INFANT, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, IVAN J. AMO, IVAN J. AMO AND VIOLET J. AMO, INDIVIDUALLY, BEULAH LEADBITTER AND HAROLD LEADBITTER, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. VITO GENOVESE AND PHILIP GENOVESE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided December 21, 1951.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Joseph F. Mattice argued the cause for appellants.

Mr. Huyler E. Romond argued the cause for respondents (Messrs. Toolan, Haney & Romond, attorneys).

Before Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE, and WM. J. BRENNAN, JR.

The opinion of the court was delivered by JAYNE, J.A.D.

"We must never forget that courts exist for the sole purpose of rendering justice according to law. No eagerness to expedite business, or to utilize fully the court's time, should be permitted to interfere with our high duty of administering justice in the individual case." Pepe v. Urban, 11 N.J.Super. 385, 389 (App. Div. 1951).

We may suppose that...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases