Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

LAWRENCE F. TYNAN, LT. CHEVROLET OLDS, INC., AND TOWNE CHEVROLET, INC.,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, CHEVROLET ANDOLDSMOBILE DIVISIONS AND R.W. EMERICK, JR., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND J B CHEVROLET AND OLDS, INC., AND FOUR (4) JOHN DOES, BEING THE FICTITIOUSNAMES OF EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS OF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND ITSDIVISIONS, DEFENDANTS.

PER CURIAM.

The Court denied plaintiffs' petition for certification from so much of the judgment of the Appellate Division, reported at 248 N.J. Super. 654, 591 A.2d 1024 (1991), as was unanimous. 127 N.J. 548, 606 A.2d 362 (1991). Plaintiffs also appealed as of right pursuant to Rule 2:2-1(a)(2) on the issue of whether the Appellate Division had properly affirmed the Law Division's dismissal of their warranty-parts-reimbursement claim. So much of the judgment of the Appellate Division as affirmed that judgment of dismissal of that claim is reversed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Cohen's partial dissent, reported at 248 N.J. Super. at 674, 591 A.2d 1024. The matter is remanded to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

For reversal and remandment — Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 5.

For affirmance — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TYNAN v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP
(Apr 8, 1992)