Legal Opinion
Teitelbaum v. Massachusetts Accident Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided May 14, 1936PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court. It should, however, be noted that the plaintiff below admitted that he treated about four patients a week and not four patients a day as inadvertently stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Chief Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, WolfsKeil, JJ. 10.
For reversal — None.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Anzano v. Metropolitan Life Ins.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1940
- Parnes v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1938