Legal Opinion

Clairol, Inc. v. Kingsley

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 23, 1970PublishedCited by 63 opinions

1Per curiam

The judgment of the Appellate Division, 109 N. J. Super. 33, is affirmed for the'reasons expressed in its opinion. Since this opinion refers to findings made by the Division of Tax Appeals but does not set forth those findings, they are appended as an addenda 1 to this opinion.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hail, Schettino and Haneman — -7.

For reversal — Hone.

1

There is no real dispute of the facts. Briefly they are: Clairol, a corporation of the State of Delaware, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol-Myers, a corporation of the State of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Clairol, Inc. v. KingsleyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1970

3Cited by63 opinions

  1. F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris PlainsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  2. Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. General Trading Co. v. Taxation Div. DirectorSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
  4. Heublein, Inc. v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Borough of SomervilleSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995

58 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