Legal Opinion

Hudson Transit Corp. v. Antonucci

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided September 3, 1948PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Heher, J.

The question here is whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable.

The action is for damages ensuing from a collision on a public highway between an automobile owned by defendant Frank Antonucci and operated by his son and co-defendant, Thomas, and a motor bus owned by plaintiff but leased.to Hudson Transit Lines, Inc., and in the latter’s exclusive possession and control by its servant and agent at the time of the mishap. Frank Antonucci counter-claimed for the damages to his vehicle. There was a jury verdict for plaintiff and judgment…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Litchfield v. Goodnow's AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. Pendleton v. Benner LineSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  4. Bowen v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  5. Palmer v. MayoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1907

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Trimble v. City of MooreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1991
  2. Reardon v. AllenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
  3. Callen v. Sherman's, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
  4. Berlin Development Corp. v. Vermont Structural Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1968
  5. Matter of Integrity Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1990

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API