Legal Opinion

Mettinger v. Globe Slicing MacH. Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 14, 1998PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

POLLOCK, J.

The ultimate issue is whether W.W. Lowensten, Inc. (Lowensten), a distributor, which sold and serviced a defective meat slicer that injured plaintiff, David Mettinger, is entitled to maintain an action for indemnification against Globe Food Equipment Company (Globe Food), the alleged successor to the product line of the manufacturer, Globe Slicing Machine Co. (Globe Slicing). The Law Division rejected Lowensten’s claim for indemnification, and the Appellate Division reversed, 292 N.J.Super. 293, 678 A.2d 1115 (1996). We granted Globe Food’s…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Doe v. PoritzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
  3. Ray v. Alad Corp.California Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine CompanySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
  5. Ramirez v. Amsted Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Wilson v. Wal-Mart StoresSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1999
  2. Kimball Intern. v. Northfield MetalNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000
  3. Funai Electric Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Electronics Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2010
  4. Christina Silviera-Francisco v. Board of Education of Elizabeth(074974)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2016
  5. Lefever v. K.P. Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1999

34 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