Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Henry H. Rubenson argued the cause for defendants-appellants and third-party plaintiffs-appellants ( Messrs. Burton, Quackenboss, Axelrod Rubenson, attorneys). Mr. Vincent D. Enright, Jr. argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent ( Messrs. Harth Enright, attorneys). Mr. Marshall Selikoff argued the cause for third-party defendant-respondent ( Messrs. Jung Selikoff, attorneys).
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
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Henry H. Rubenson argued the cause for defendants-appellants and third-party plaintiffs-appellants ( Messrs. Burton, Quackenboss, Axelrod Rubenson, attorneys). Mr. Vincent D. Enright, Jr. argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent ( Messrs. Harth Enright, attorneys). Mr. Marshall Selikoff argued the cause for third-party defendant-respondent ( Messrs. Jung Selikoff, attorneys).
Judges
  • PER CURIAM.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

JACK ZENTZ, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES S. TOOP AND MARION TOOP,HUSBAND AND WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY, JOINTLY AND/OR D/B/A LINCROFT SHOPPINGCENTER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division. Mr. Justice Proctor and Mr. Justice Haneman vote to reverse the judgment for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS and SCHETTINO — 4.

For reversal — Justices PROCTOR and HANEMAN — 2.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

ZENTZ v. TOOP ET AL
(Sep 25, 1967)