Legal Opinion

Hornyak v. the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 21, 1973PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

63 N.J. 99 (1973)

305 A.2d 65

MICHAEL HORNYAK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued February 20, 1973.

Decided May 21, 1973.

Mrs. Ruth Rabstein argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Pellettieri & Rabstein, attorneys).

Mr. Thomas J. Mannion, Jr. argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Capehart & Scatchard, attorneys).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by JACOBS, J.

The Appellate Division, in an unreported opinion, affirmed the denial of a workmen's compensation award to the plaintiff; we certified on his…

2Cases cited40 opinions

  1. Bryant v. FissellSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913
  2. Hinojosa v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Howard v. Harwood's Restaurant Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  4. Ricciardi v. Damar Products Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
  5. Schreifer v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Lozano v. Frank DeLuca ConstructionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
  2. Livingstone v. Abraham & Straus, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
  3. Wunschel v. City of Jersey CitySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  4. McClure v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Ward v. DavidowitzNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1983

20 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