Legal Opinion
Seckular v. Celotex
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided April 3, 1986PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
209 N.J. Super. 242 (1986)
507 A.2d 290
HYMAN SECKULAR AND RUTH SECKULAR, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
CELOTEX; CELOTEX, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO PHILIP CAREY, ET ALS., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Submitted February 26, 1986.
Decided April 3, 1986.
Before Judges KING, O'BRIEN and SCALERA.
Levinson, Conover, Axelrod, Wheaton & Grayzel, attorneys for appellants (Ronald B. Grayzel, on the brief).
Morley, Cramer, Tansey, Haggerty & Fanning, attorneys for respondent Nicolet, Inc. (Thomas M. Kelly, on the letter brief).
Chazen & Chazen, attorneys for…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Heavner v. Uniroyal, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1973
- Mellk v. SarahsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1967
- Steinhardt v. Johns-Manville Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1981
- Celotex Corp. v. CopelandSupreme Court of Florida · 1985
- Deemer v. Silk City Textile MacH. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Barco Auto Leasing Corp. v. HoltNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1988
- MUELLER EX REL. MUELLER v. Parke DavisNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1991
- Rolnick v. Gilson & Sons, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1992
- Ferrell v. Allstate InsuranceNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2006
- Ferrell v. Allstate Insurance Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2007