From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sikes v. Township of Rockaway

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Oct 27, 1994
138 N.J. 41 (N.J. 1994)

Summary

concluding that issue raised in brief but not designated in notice of appeal was not properly before the court

Summary of this case from Queen v. City of Bridgeton

Opinion

Argued October 11, 1994 —

Decided October 27, 1994.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

James J. Higgins argued the cause for appellant ( Boyar, Higgins Suozzo, attorneys). Paul M. Selitto argued the cause for respondent ( Pitman, Senesky, Nicola Selitto, attorneys).


The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 269 N.J. Super. 463, 635 A.2d 1004 (1994).

For Affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.

Opposed — None.


Summaries of

Sikes v. Township of Rockaway

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Oct 27, 1994
138 N.J. 41 (N.J. 1994)

concluding that issue raised in brief but not designated in notice of appeal was not properly before the court

Summary of this case from Queen v. City of Bridgeton
Case details for

Sikes v. Township of Rockaway

Case Details

Full title:DONALD R. SIKES, JR., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TOWNSHIP OF ROCKAWAY AND…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Oct 27, 1994

Citations

138 N.J. 41 (N.J. 1994)
648 A.2d 482

Citing Cases

WSFS Credit Corp. v. Dipaolo

Although DiPaolo correctly observes that Salomon did not refer to the orders memorializing those…

Wright v. Twp. of Cherry Hill

Sikes v. Township of Rockaway, 269 N.J. Super. 463, 46566 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b., 138 N.J. 41 (1994).…