Case Name: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONMOUTH COUNTY, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MAUREEN P. CANNIZZARO, MARY FLYNN. AMANDA FANSLER, JOANNE M. FISHER. JOHN T. HIMHAUSER, MARY GANS, OLIVIA GANS, MONA JONES, ROBERT DOW, MARY KAY SMITH, MONMOUTH COUNTY RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, SHIELD OF ROSES, AND X.Y., A FICTITIOUS NAME FOR ALL PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THE NAMED DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND NEW JERSEY RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1987-05-21
Citations: 217 N.J. Super. 623
Docket Number: 
Parties: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONMOUTH COUNTY, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MAUREEN P. CANNIZZARO, MARY FLYNN. AMANDA FANSLER, JOANNE M. FISHER. JOHN T. HIMHAUSER, MARY GANS, OLIVIA GANS, MONA JONES, ROBERT DOW, MARY KAY SMITH, MONMOUTH COUNTY RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, SHIELD OF ROSES, AND X.Y., A FICTITIOUS NAME FOR ALL PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THE NAMED DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND NEW JERSEY RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 217
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONMOUTH COUNTY, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MAUREEN P. CANNIZZARO, MARY FLYNN. AMANDA FANSLER, JOANNE M. FISHER. JOHN T. HIMHAUSER, MARY GANS, OLIVIA GANS, MONA JONES, ROBERT DOW, MARY KAY SMITH, MONMOUTH COUNTY RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, SHIELD OF ROSES, AND X.Y., A FICTITIOUS NAME FOR ALL PERSONS OR ORGANIZATIONS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THE NAMED DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND NEW JERSEY RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE, DEFENDANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued March 25, 1987—
Decided May 21, 1987.
Before Judges KING, DEIGHAN and HAVEY.
William F. Dowd, argued the cause for individual appellants.
Richard Ansell argued the cause for respondent (Anschelewitz, Barr & Ansell, attorneys, Susan T. Robbins, on the brief).
Traynor & Hogan, for appellant Monmouth County Right to Life Committee filed a brief, no appearance was made on their behalf.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
The judgment of the Superior Court, Law Division is affirmed essentially for the reasons set forth by Judge Selikoff in his opinion reported at 204 N.J.Super. 531 (Ch.Div.1985).