Yahoo Web Search

Search results

  1. Dec 21, 2017 · TRENTON – Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino today announced that Jeffrey H. Sutherland was formally sworn in this morning as Cape May County Prosecutor. Governor Chris Christie nominated Sutherland as Cape May County Prosecutor on Nov. 30, and he was confirmed by the New Jersey Senate on Dec. 7.

  2. Dec 21, 2017 · 3281. Cape May County Prosecutor Jeffrey H. Sutherland, with his wife, Yolanda, holding the Bible, takes the oath of office from Superior Court Judge Mark Sandson. By Donald Wittkowski.

  3. SUTHERLAND (2018) Supreme Court of New Jersey. STATE of New Jersey, PlaintiffRespondent, v. Ryan SUTHERLAND, DefendantAppellant. A–14 September Term 2016. Decided: January 11, 2018. Joseph P. Rem, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (Rem Law Group, attorneys; Joseph P. Rem, Jr., of counsel, and Tamra Katcher, of counsel and on the brief).

  4. nj.gov › oag › newsreleases17State of New Jersey

    Dec 21, 2017 · TRENTON - Attorney General Christopher S. Porrino today announced that Jeffrey H. Sutherland was formally sworn in this morning as Cape May County Prosecutor. Governor Chris Christie nominated Sutherland as Cape May County Prosecutor on Nov. 30, and he was confirmed by the New Jersey Senate on Dec. 7. Sutherland takes over from Rob Johnson, who ...

  5. State v. Ryan Sutherland (077807) (Morris County and Statewide) A-14-16 Supreme. Jan. 11, 2018. Oral Argument. Summary.

  6. Apr 20, 2013 · Ivan H Sutherland. Litigation Attorney at Jersey City, NJ. Not yet reviewed. View Contact Info. Licensed for 33 years. State NJ. Acquired 1990. Status. Active No misconduct found. We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer. About. Location. Reviews. Cost. Resume. Featured Litigation lawyers in Jersey City, NJ.

  7. Ryan Sutherland (A-14-16) (077807) Argued October 10, 2017 -- Decided January 11, 2018. LaVECCHIA, J., writing for the Court. The Court considers the constitutionality of an officer’s stop of a motor vehicle under the belief that the vehicle was in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-61(a) and -66 because one of the vehicle’s taillights was not operational.

  1. People also search for