BOR. OF OAKLAND v. ROTH


28 N.J. Super. 321 (1953)

100 A.2d 698

BOROUGH OF OAKLAND, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EMIL ROTH AND ELLA MAE ROTH, HIS WIFE, ALICE E. CASELLA AND CHARLES M. CASELLA, HER HUSBAND, GARRETT W. JUNTA AND ETHEL A. JUNTA, HIS WIFE, AND SHIRLEY TINTLE AND DONALD TINTLE, HER HUSBAND, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. INTERVENTION BY THEODORE D. PARSONS, ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided November 12, 1953.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. James M. Muth briefed the cause for appellant (Messrs. Weber, Muth & Weber, attorneys).

Mr. Chester K. Ligham, Deputy Attorney-General, argued the cause for the State (Mr. Theodore D. Parsons, Attorney-General of the State of New Jersey).

Mr. James A. Major argued the cause for respondents (Messrs. Major & Carlsen, attorneys).

Before Judges EASTWOOD, JAYNE and FRANCIS.


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

It was resolved in the Chancery Division that the alleged cause of action of the borough was not maintainable. The present appeal implicates the propriety of the order dismissing the complaint.

The allegations of the complaint augmented by some stipulated matters set forth the following state of affairs which, for the purpose of the motion to dismiss, were...

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