BIRO v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. Benjamin Weiner argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent ( Messrs. Weiner Schoifet, attorneys; Mr. Edward J. Egan, on the brief). Mr. Richard H. Woods argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant ( Messrs. Hiering, Grasso, Gelzer Kelaher, attorneys; Mr. Thomas F. Kelaher, of counsel).

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. Benjamin Weiner argued the cause for appellant-cross-respondent ( Messrs. Weiner Schoifet, attorneys; Mr. Edward J. Egan, on the brief). Mr. Richard H. Woods argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant ( Messrs. Hiering, Grasso, Gelzer Kelaher, attorneys; Mr. Thomas F. Kelaher, of counsel).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

LORRAINE G. BIRO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. PRUDENTIALINSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division, 110 N.J. Super. 391, is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion of the Appellate Division.

For reversal — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 7.

For affirmance — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

BIRO v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA

LORRAINE G. BIRO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. PRUDENTIALINSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT.

Comments