Legal Opinion
Young v. STEINBERG
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided February 6, 1969PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered
Pee Ctjeiam.
We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Foley in bis dissenting opinion. 100 N. J. Super. 507, 514 (1968). We find no reason to constrict the meaning of the term “money judgment” in the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law so as to exclude consent judgments (N. J. S. 2A:53A-3). See Carolina Coach Company v. Cox, 337 F. 2d 101 (4th Cir. 1964), Callihan Interests, Inc. v. Duffield, 385 S. W. 2d 586 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1965), construing statutes similar to ours. Rather contribution is to be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Consolidated Coach Corporation v. BurgeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1932
- Swartz v. SunderlandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Callihan Interests, Inc. v. DuffieldCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1964
- Carolina Coach Company, a Corporation v. Allan L. CoxCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1964
3Cited by20 opinions
- Johnson v. Cyklop Strapping Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1987
- Tormo v. YormarkDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1975
- National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. FrackeltonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
- Home Ins. Co. v. Advance MacHine Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
- SC Holdings, Inc. v. A.A.A. Realty Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.