Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Holderman
188 A.2d 599, 39 N.J. 355
Opinion
ESSO STANDARD OIL COMPANY ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CARL HOLDERMAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT.
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CARL HOLDERMAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT.
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
RAYMOND F. MALE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Mr. John W. Fritz and Mr. Edward B. Meredith argued the cause for the appellants (Messrs. Wharton, Stewart & Davis, attorneys).
*356 Mr. Theodore I. Botter argued the cause for the respondent (Mr. Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General, attorney).
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Conford in the Appellate Division.
For affirmance Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN 6.
For reversal None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Holderman, 188 A.2d 599, 39 N.J. 355 (N.J. 1963).
188 A.2d 599 (Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Holderman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services
9 A.3d 882 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2010)
Masel v. Paramus Borough Council
433 A.2d 794 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1981)