Legal Opinion
Feist & Feist Realty v. Dockside
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided January 10, 1992PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
255 N.J. Super. 100 (1992)
604 A.2d 653
FEIST & FEIST REALTY CORP., PLAINTIFF,
v.
DOCKSIDE URBAN RENEWAL CORP. AND CLIFFORD H. SLAVIN, DEFENDANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Essex County.
Decided January 10, 1992.
Philip Elberg, attorney for plaintiff (Medvin & Elberg).
Dominic J. Aprile, attorney for defendant (Bathgate, Wegener, Wouters & Neumann).
FUENTES, J.S.C.
Plaintiff Feist and Feist Realty Corp., moves for summary judgment against defendant, Dockside Urban Renewal Corp. (Dockside), claiming a broker's commission for having procured a tenant for defendant. Defendant claims that…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Ellsworth Dobbs, Inc. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1967
- MERCHANTS IND. CORP., OF NY v. EgglestonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1962
- Carlsen v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan TrustSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
- Snyder Realty v. BMW OF N. AMER.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1989
- Whittle v. Associated Indemnity Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1943
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Coldwell Banker v. BLANCKE PWLLCNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2004
- Crater Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2007