State v. Radziwil
State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Petro Radziwil, Defendant-Appellant
State v. Radziwil, 582 A.2d 1003 (N.J. 1990)
Opinion
PER CURIAM The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 235 N.J.Super.
557 , 563 A.2d 856 (1989).
For affirmance Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, and STEIN — 7.
Opposed — none.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(It is “appropriate — if not incumbent — upon the trial judge to instruct the jury regarding the use” of habit testimony)
Cited by 3 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.