This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
- (N/A)
Procedural History
- Appeal from the District Court of Union County, John M. Paternoster, District Judge
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Filed a Consent to Proposed Disposition (N/A)
- Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- (N/A)
Disposition
- The appeal was dismissed.
Reasons
-
Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, J., and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, J., concurring): The court proposed summary dismissal for reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing the summary dismissal was filed. In fact, the appellant filed a Consent to Proposed Disposition, leading to the court's decision to dismiss the appeal and issue the mandate forthwith.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.