BARRES v. HOLT, RINEHART WINSTON, INC, N.J. Super. App. Div., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Barry H. Evenchick argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (
Walder, Steiner, Sondak Evenchick, attorneys).
Jane M. Langseth argued the cause for defendant-respondent (
Pitney, Hardin Kipp, attorneys
Mr. Clyde A. Szuch
Mr. Armen Shahinian, on the brief).

Judges

PER CURIAM:

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Barry H. Evenchick argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (
Walder, Steiner, Sondak Evenchick, attorneys).
Jane M. Langseth argued the cause for defendant-respondent (
Pitney, Hardin Kipp, attorneys
Mr. Clyde A. Szuch
Mr. Armen Shahinian, on the brief).

Judges

PER CURIAM:

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

ANTHONY BARRES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HOLT, RINEHART WINSTON, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM:

We have examined the competing policy arguments relating to the application of the statute of limitations in libel actions and agree with the trial judge that the single publication rule should be adopted as the law of this State. The judgment for defendant is therefore affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Dwyer, reported at 131 N.J. Super. 371 (Law Div. 1974).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

BARRES v. HOLT, RINEHART WINSTON, INC

ANTHONY BARRES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HOLT, RINEHART WINSTON, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Comments