- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
State v. Lanza
60 N.J. Super. 139 (App. Div. 1960)4 Citing cases
State v. Lanza
39 N.J. 595 (N.J. 1963) Cited 32 timesThe past history of these proceedings, and even the papers filed in the present appeal, lend substantial color to the assertion, but we need not determine the question, in view of the present disposition of the appeals." 60 N.J. Super., at pp. 132-133; see, also, State by Bontempo v.Lanza, 60 N.J. Super. 139 ( App. Div. 1960). On May 25, 1959 we denied an application for certification from the dismissal of the appeal "without prejudice to the renewal of the grounds sought * * * to be raised on appeal from final judgment."
N.A.A.C.P. v. State, Dept. of Law
312 N.J. Super. 552 (App. Div. 1998) Cited 6 timesIn N.A.A.C.P. v. State, 312 N.J. Super. 552, 558 (App. Div. 1998), the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a lower court's denial of pro hac vice admission, noting specifically that "provincialism [] cannot be tolerated.
The countervailing considerations that would justify denying the right to appear to a person who has satisfied the good cause standard for pro hac vice admission must be specific enough and sufficiently well-established by the record to support a finding that an ethical precept will be transgressed if the representation occurs; or that a palpable, articulable reservation concerning the individual's ability to provide adequate representation to the client and devote appropriate attention to the case is manifest, see, e.g., In re Bailey, 57 N.J. 451, 273 A.2d 563 (1971); State v. Lanza, 60 N.J. Super. 139, 142-43, 158 A.2d 355 (App.Div. 1960). With individualized regard to David Rose and his long-past governmental service, we view the record in this matter to have provided insufficient support for the conclusion reached that such countervailing considerations exist here.
Robinson v. St. Peter's Medical Center
236 N.J. Super. 94 (Law Div. 1989) Cited 3 timesR. 2:5-3. State v. Lanza, 60 N.J. Super. 139 (App.Div. 1960). According to R. 2:5-3(c), the transcript may be abbreviated by consent or order of the trial judge whenever the questions presented by an appeal can be determined without an examination of all the pleadings, evidence and proceedings in the trial court.
State v. Lanza
74 N.J. Super. 362 (App. Div. 1962) Cited 13 timesIn State v. Lanza, 74 N.J. Super. 362, 377 (App.Div. 196 2), the court cited the above-quoted principle without comment, but found that the facts presented in that matter were not analogous to those of the Doyle case, and therefore determined that the rule did not support the arguments raised by defendant.
Moreover, he has advised Silvio and consulted with previous counsel for Silvio during the whole course of the litigation. See State v. Lanza, supra (60 N.J. Super., at pp. 132, 133); State v. Lanza, 60 N.J. Super. 139 ( App. Div. 1960). A petition for certification of our dismissal of the previous appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, but "without prejudice to the renewal of the grounds sought here to be raised on appeal from final judgment."