New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 4/23/1997

State v. Schenkolewski

Citations

301 N.J. Super. 115
693 A.2d 1173
1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 234

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that New Jersey’s current bribery statute, like its predecessor, is intended t.o “proscribe conduct ... which ‘denigrates the integrity of our public institutions’ ” (quoting State v. Ferro, 128 N.J.Super. 353, 320 A.2d 177, 180 (Ct. App. Div. 1974))
describing bribery scheme as paying money “in exchange for a ‘promised’ or ‘definitive’ vote” by municipal committee so as to “insure favorable action” on local development project
requiring “subjective intent on the part of the actor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wallace

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Schenkolewski

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

State v. Schenkolewski
Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1997-07-15

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.