1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 129 N.J.
  5. 129 N.J. Super. 426 (1974)
 

CONTINENTAL CAN CO. v. HUDSON FOAM LATEX PROD., INC.

129 N.J. Super. 426 (1974)

324 A.2d 60

CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, A CORPORATION, HORN HARDART COMPANY, A CORPORATION, NEW YORK SUSQUEHANNA AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. HUDSON FOAM LATEX PRODUCTS, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided July 29, 1974.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Allan Maitlin argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Feuerstein, Sachs & Maitlin, attorneys; Mr. Leonard Rosenstein, on the brief).

Mr. Robert J. Murphy argued the cause for respondent (Messrs. Vaccaro, Osborne & Curran, attorneys; Mr. Robert D. Curran, of counsel).

Before Judges KOLOVSKY, FRITZ and CRANE.

PER CURIAM.

The procedural foundation for this appeal, and the facts on which the litigation itself is predicated, are adequately articulated in the published opinion of the trial court. Continental Can Co. v. Hudson Foam Latex Prod., Inc., 123 N.J.Super. 364 (Law Div. 1973). We supplement only to fill the gap between there and here. We denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court, on plaintiffs...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases