Legal Opinion

Chatman v. Hall

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided June 29, 1992Published

1Opinion of the Court

128 N.J. 394 (1992)

608 A.2d 263

EDDIE CHATMAN AND SARAH CHATMAN, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

v.

PAUL HALL, VALERIE HALL, JOHN DOE(S) F-Z MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL AND/OR ADMINISTRATORS, (BEING FICTITIOUS NAMES) AS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY/COMPANIES INDIVIDUALLY, JOINTLY, SEVERALLY AND/OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEFENDANTS, AND WALTER RICHARDSON, WALTER RAY, CLARENCE MILLER, JOSEPH DIFANTE, WILBERT FOUNTAIN, AND ALBERT BENJAMIN, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued November 4, 1991.

Decided June 29, 1992.

Stephen W. Guice argued the cause for appellants (Friedman, Bafundo,…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited56 opinions

  1. Johnson v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Renz v. Penn Central Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1981
  3. Medical Society v. New Jersey Department of Law & Public SafetySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
  4. Rochinsky v. State of NJ, Dept. of Transp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
  5. McAndrew v. MularchukSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960

51 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