1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 295 N.J.
  5. 295 N.J. Super. 374 (1996)
 

CUMMINGS v. BAHR

295 N.J. Super. 374 (1996)

685 A.2d 60

CYNTHIA CUMMINGS AND JAMES CUMMINGS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. HARVEY BAHR AND MADELINE BAHR, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided December 3, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Michael D. Carroll argued the cause for appellant Cynthia Cummings (Tomar, Simonoff, Adourian, O'Brien, Kaplan, Jacoby & Graziano, attorneys; Mr. Carroll, of counsel and on the brief; Julie L. Davis, on the brief).

John M. Amorison argued the cause for respondents (Jay H. Greenblatt & Associates, attorneys; Nicholas Kierniesky, on the brief).

Before Judges MUIR, Jr., KLEINER and COBURN.

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

Plaintiffs Cynthia Cummings and John Cummings, suing per quod, appeal from the denial of their second motion for reconsideration of a prior decision which granted summary judgment to defendant Madeline Bahr.2 Our decision, affirming the Law Division, is predicated upon the theory of judicial estoppel and its interrelationship...

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