Opinion · Supreme Court of New Jersey
State v. Scott
118 N.J. 406
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of New Jersey
- Jurisdiction
- New Jersey
- Date
- 1990-04-09
- Topic
- litigation
How later courts describe this case
- rev'g on concurring and dissenting opinion, 231 N.J.Super. 258, 269-77, 555 A. 2d 667, 672-76 (App.Div.1989)
- court had vacated temporary restraining order in domestic violence case just four days before arrest
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Scott. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 14 opinions
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
RORY SCOTT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued January 30, 1990. Decided April 9, 1990.*407 Steven J. Kaflowitz, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (John H. Stamler, Union County Prosecutor, attorney).
William J. McCarthy argued the cause for respondent.
Jessica S. Oppenheim, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General, attorney).
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Ashbey's concurring and dissenting opinion, reported at 231 N.J. Super. at 269, 555 A.2d 667 (1989).
CLIFFORD, J., dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Brody's opinion, reported at 231 N.J. Super. 258, 555 A.2d 667 (1989).
For reversal Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN 6.
For affirmance Justice CLIFFORD 1.