LeFelt v. Nasarow

185 A.2d 217, 76 N.J. Super. 576

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided October 29, 1962·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

76 N.J. Super. 576 (1962) 185 A.2d 217

FLORENCE LeFELT AND REUBEN LeFELT, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
WASILI NASAROW, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued October 22, 1962. Decided October 29, 1962.

Before Judges CONFORD, GAULKIN and KILKENNY.

Mr. Samuel Doan argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Stalter, Doan & DeYoe, attorneys for appellant Aetna Insurance Company; Mr. James H. McLeod, attorney for appellant The Phoenix Insurance Company; Mr. Aaron Dines, on the brief).

Mr. Archie Elkins argued the cause for respondents (Mr. Robert A. Elkins, on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Kolovsky in the Law Division. LeFelt v. Nasarow, 71 N.J. Super. 538 (Law Div. 1962).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

76 N.J. Super. 576 (1962) 185 A.2d 217

FLORENCE LeFELT AND REUBEN LeFELT, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
WASILI NASAROW, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued October 22, 1962. Decided October 29, 1962.

Before Judges CONFORD, GAULKIN and KILKENNY.

Mr. Archie Elkins argued the cause for respondents (Mr. Robert A. Elkins, on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Kolovsky in the Law Division. LeFelt v. Nasarow, 71 N.J. Super. 538 (Law Div. 1962).

LeFelt v. Nasarow, 185 A.2d 217, 76 N.J. Super. 576 (N.J. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

185 A.2d 217 (LeFelt v. Nasarow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

United States Underwriters Ins. v. Kum Gang Inc.

443 F. Supp. 2d 348 (E.D. New York, 2006)

Caldwell Trucking PRP Group v. Spaulding Composites Co.

890 F. Supp. 1247 (D. New Jersey, 1995)

McNeilab, Inc. v. North River Insurance

645 F. Supp. 525 (D. New Jersey, 1986)

State Farm Mutual Insurance v. Stitely

247 A.2d 713 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1968)

Trolio v. McLendon

224 N.E.2d 117 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1967)

Northwestern Mutual Insurance v. Great American Insurance

404 P.2d 995 (Washington Supreme Court, 1965)

Opinion

FLORENCE LeFELT AND REUBEN LeFELT, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. WASILI NASAROW, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Related

FLORENCE LeFELT AND REUBEN LeFELT, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
WASILI NASAROW, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, AND AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, AND THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.