Milos v. Exxon Co., USA
671 A.2d 120, 143 N.J. 333, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 37
Opinion
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Rodriguez of the Appellate Division, reported at 281 N.J.Super. 194, 656 A.2d 1300 (1995).
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, STEIN and COLEMAN — 6.
Opposed — none.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Milos v. Exxon Co., USA, 671 A.2d 120, 143 N.J. 333, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 37 (N.J. 1996).
671 A.2d 120 (Milos v. Exxon Co., USA) — 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)
Sheffield v. Schering Plough Corp.
680 A.2d 750 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1996)