In re Szczepanik

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Callan

    126 N.J. Super. 103 (App. Div. 1973)   Cited 15 times

    III — Assuming that the charge tried by the prosecutor was properly within the order to show cause then the trial court had no jurisdiction in the matter because the prosecutor charged nothing more than a violation by an attorney of a disciplinary rule. IV — The State failed to charge an offense under the summary contempt power as defined by In Re Szczepanik, 37 N.J. 503 (1962). V — The trial court committed prejudicial error by applying a definition of the offense of contempt manifestly erroneous under State law.

  2. Harbor Tank Storage Co., Inc. v. DeAngelis

    85 N.J. Super. 92 (App. Div. 1964)   Cited 5 times

    Another trier of fact might have found him not guilty upon the same facts, i.e., that DeAngelis did believe he was being asked about his own assets, or that the questions were not explicit enough to require the revelation of assets of Allied. Cf. In re Szczepanik, 37 N.J. 503 (1962). The court, of course, had the right to inquire about the account, even if it belonged to Allied, and if defendant understood that the questions called for a disclosure of the account he should have divulged its existence.