Legal Opinion

Continental Can Co. v. Hudson Foam Latex Prod., Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided July 29, 1974PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

129 N.J. Super. 426 (1974)

324 A.2d 60

CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, A CORPORATION, HORN HARDART COMPANY, A CORPORATION, NEW YORK SUSQUEHANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

v.

HUDSON FOAM LATEX PRODUCTS, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued June 11, 1974.

Decided July 29, 1974.

Before Judges KOLOVSKY, FRITZ and CRANE.

Mr. Allan Maitlin argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Feuerstein, Sachs & Maitlin, attorneys; Mr. Leonard Rosenstein, on the brief).

Mr. Robert J. Murphy argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Vaccaro, Osborne &…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Reardon v. AllenNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1965
  2. Desmond v. KramerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1967
  3. Continental Can Co. v. Hudson FoamNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1973

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of EllisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Allesandra v. GrossNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1982
  3. Messick v. Star EnterpriseSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995
  4. NJ Manufacturers Insurance Co. v. BrowerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978
  5. Knoblauch v. KenyonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987

17 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