Penthouse International Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
445 A.2d 428, 184 N.J. Super. 130, 1982 N.J. Super. LEXIS 761
Opinion
The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lester in his opinion which is reported in 179 N.J.Super. 155.
Absent proof that the process of defendant is akin to a monopoly or constitutes by analogy a public utility, we agree that defendant may assert the conditions here involved when accepting film for processing.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Penthouse International Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 445 A.2d 428, 184 N.J. Super. 130, 1982 N.J. Super. LEXIS 761 (N.J. Ct. App. 1982).
445 A.2d 428 (Penthouse International Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sgro v. Getty Petroleum Corp.
854 F. Supp. 1164 (D. New Jersey, 1994)
Penthouse International Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
450 A.2d 567 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1982)
American Handling Equip. v. TC Moffatt & Co.
445 A.2d 428 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1982)