Higgins v. Schneider
Timothy Higgins, an Infant, Etc., Plaintiff, and Charles A. Higgins, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William A. Schneider, Defendant-Respondent
Opinion
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of Judge Haneman in the court below.
Mr. Chief Justice Weintbaub and Mr. Justice Schettino vote to reverse the judgment for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of Judge Ereund.
For affirmance — Justices Bueling, Jacobs, Ebancis, Pkoctok and Hall — 5.
For reversal — Chief Justice Weinteatjb, and Justice Schettino — 2.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(consequential claim against Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund barred by failure to give timely notice to Fund even though infant's claim held tolled by N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21)
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.