HOBLITZELL v. HOWARD, N.J., Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. George F. Hetfield argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant, cross-respondent ( Messrs. Hetfield and Hetfield, attorneys). Mr. Meyer E. Ruback argued the cause for the defendants-respondents, cross-appellants, W. Franck Howard, William C. Hoblitzell, John E. Toolan and Joseph G. Seaman ( Messrs. Ruback, Albach and Weisman, attorneys). Mr. Daniel G. Kasen argued the cause for the defendant-respondent, cross-appellant, H.O.B. Motors, Inc., ( Messrs. Kasen, Schnitzer and Kasen, 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

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Mr. George F. Hetfield argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellant, cross-respondent ( Messrs. Hetfield and Hetfield, attorneys). Mr. Meyer E. Ruback argued the cause for the defendants-respondents, cross-appellants, W. Franck Howard, William C. Hoblitzell, John E. Toolan and Joseph G. Seaman ( Messrs. Ruback, Albach and Weisman, attorneys). Mr. Daniel G. Kasen argued the cause for the defendant-respondent, cross-appellant, H.O.B. Motors, Inc., ( Messrs. Kasen, Schnitzer and Kasen, attorneys).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

WALTER R. HOBLITZELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. W.FRANCK HOWARD, WILLIAM C. HOBLITZELL, H.O.B. MOTORS, INC., A CORPORATION OFNEW JERSEY, JOHN E. TOOLAN AND JOSEPH J. SEAMAN, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS ANDCROSS-APPELLANTS.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Freund in the court below.

For affirmance — Chief Justice VANDERBILT, and Justices HEHER, WACHENFELD, JACOBS and BRENNAN — 5.

For affirmance of disallowance of counsel fees to plaintiff and for reversal with instructions to enter judgment for defendants — Justices OLIPHANT and BURLING — 2.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

HOBLITZELL v. HOWARD

WALTER R. HOBLITZELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, AND CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. W.FRANCK HOWARD, WILLIAM C. HOBLITZELL, H.O.B. MOTORS, INC., A CORPORATION OFNEW JERSEY, JOHN E. TOOLAN AND JOSEPH J. SEAMAN, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS ANDCROSS-APPELLANTS.

Comments