Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Holderman

188 A.2d 599, 39 N.J. 355
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 4, 1963·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

39 N.J. 355 (1963)
188 A.2d 599

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.

Argued February 18, 1963.
Decided March 4, 1963.

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)