NEW JERSEY OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
HILLMAN-KOHAN EYEGLASSES, INC. ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued March 7, 1978.
Decided June 7, 1978.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Mr. Seymour Margulies argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Brigadier & Margulies, attorneys; Messrs. Seymour and Robert E. Margulies on the brief; Mr. Max Spinrad, associate counsel).
Mr. Clive S. Cummis argued the cause for respondent Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc. (Messrs. Sills, Beck, Cummis, Radin & Tischman, attorneys; Mr. Jerald D. Baranoff on the brief).
Mr. Jack Dashosh argued the cause for respondent Vornado, d/b/a Noble Optics, Inc. and Noble Eyeglasses.
Mr. Bruce R. Fadem argued the cause for respondents Abrams, Alonge, Angelini, Appel, Arons, Barth, Blaurock, Blumberg, Cogan, Epstein, Falkowitz, Feinstein, Feinstein, Glazer, Kaufman, Kurtz, Lehman, Levine, Morenstein, Oxenhorm, Schuster, Shapiro, Shapiro, Vend and Zolot (Messrs. Fadem & Liberman, attorneys).
Ms. Beatrice Levidow, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent State Board of Optometrists and the Attorney General of New Jersey (Mr. John J. Degnan, Attorney General, attorney; Mr. William F. Hyland, former Attorney General, and Ms. Erminie L. Conley, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel).
Mr. Sanford Kluger, attorney for respondent Kaplan, submitted a brief.
Ms. Inez M. Stanziale, attorney for respondent Weiss, relied on briefs filed by Messrs. Fadem & Liberman, attorneys for individual respondents.
Messrs. Heilbrunn, Finkelstein, Heilbrunn, Garruto & Galex, attorneys for respondents Plasner and Ruffo, relied on briefs filed by Messrs. Fadem & Liberman, attorneys for individual respondent.
Mr. Joseph Schoenholz, attorney for respondent Community Opticians $7 Eyeglasses, relied on brief filed by Messrs. Sills, Beck, Commis, Radin & Tischman, attorneys for respondent Hillman-Kohan.
Messrs. Schiffman & Schiffman, attorneys for respondent Schiffman, relied on brief filed by all other respondents.
Before Judges LYNCH, KOLE and PETRELLA.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
The opinion of the court was delivered by LYNCH, P.J.A.D.
Plaintiff, a not-for-profit New Jersey corporation composed of over 500 licensed optometrists (hereafter, Association), brought suit in the Chancery Division alleging that three corporations and several individuals engaged in the optometry business (hereafter, the nonpublic defendants) violated the Optometry Act, N.J.S.A. 45:12-1 et seq., the Optician Act, N.J.S.A. 52:17B-41.1 et seq...
Let's get started
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.
