1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 217 N.J.
  5. 217 N.J. Super. 548 (1987)
 

GEORGE v. BERGEN PINES CTY. HOSP.

217 N.J. Super. 548 (1987)

526 A.2d 293

JAMES GEORGE, GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF JAMES GEORGE, JR., AND JAMES GEORGE, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS, v. BERGEN PINES COUNTY HOSPITAL, "JANE" SOLVEYCHIK, M.D., (SAID FIRST NAME BEING FICTITIOUS AND PRESENTLY UNKNOWN), JOHN CALI, RUTHER FLOREZ, M. GOLIN, M.D., WARREN COZART, R.N., ETHEL AMAPANI, R.N., HUMANE RESTRAINT COMPANY, INC., CAPEHART MEDICAL CO., WILLIE HARRIS, JOSEPH DAVIS, JAMES GARY, JOEL RAUSCH, WILLIAM MUSE, LOLITA SAMPANGE, JOHN CONSOLE SURGICAL CO., INC., AND J.J. POSEY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS. ANNETTE GEORGE, PLAINTIFF, v. BERGEN PINES COUNTY HOSPITAL, "JANE" SOLVEYCHIK, M.D., (SAID FIRST NAME BEING FICTITIOUS AND PRESENTLY UNKNOWN), JOHN CALI, RUTHER FLOREZ, M. GOLIN, M.D., WARREN COZART, R.N., ETHEL AMAPANI, R.N., HUMANE RESTRAINT COMPANY, INC., CAPEHART MEDICAL CO., WILLIE HARRIS, JOSEPH DAVIS, JAMES GARY, JOEL RAUSCH, WILLIAM MUSE, LOLITA SAMPANGE, JOHN CONSOLE SURGICAL CO., INC., AND J.J. POSEY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division — Bergen County.

Decided January 20, 1987.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Charles Rodgers for plaintiffs (Breslin & Breslin, attorneys).

Milton Gurny for defendant Bergen Pines County Hospital (Hein, Smith & Berezin, attorneys).

Thomas Hallett for defendants Cali, Harris, Davis and Gary (Conway, Reiseman, Mattia & Sharp, attorneys).

Patrick M. Little for defendant Humane Restraint (Bright & Zirulnik, attorneys).

Robert D. Curran for defendant Florez (Vaccaro, Osborne, Curran & Murphy, attorneys).

Roger G. Ellis for defendant Golin (Bumgardner, Hardin & Ellis, attorneys).

Robert Wright for defendant Amapani (Melli & Doyne, attorneys).

James F. Sullivan for defendant Capehart Medical Supply (Sullivan & Graber, attorneys).

Donald T. Okner for defendant John Console Surgical Co., Inc. (Dwyer, Connell & Lisbona, attorneys).

MINUSKIN, J.S.C.

The issue presented is the number of peremptory challenges to which plaintiff is entitled on voir dire examination.

Plaintiff James George instituted this action against eight defendants, each of whom has independent representation. In accordance with R. 1:8-3(c), these defendants will receive six peremptory challenges apiece, for a total of 48 challenges while plaintiff will receive only six challenges. Plaintiff requests additional...

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