Rosenthal v. Art Metal, Inc.

250 A.2d 747, 53 N.J. 344
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 17, 1969·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

53 N.J. 344 (1969)
250 A.2d 747

LAWRENCE H. ROSENTHAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND t/a INDUSTRIAL REALTY AND FEIST & FEIST, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
ART METAL, INC., ETC., AND GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, ETC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued March 5, 1969.
Decided March 17, 1969.

Mr. Edwin H. Stern argued the cause for appellant, Feist & Feist (Messrs. Hellring, Lindeman & Landau, attorneys).

Mr. Joel Sondak argued the cause for appellant Lawrence H. Rosenthal (Messrs. Okin, Okin & Sondak, attorneys; Messrs. Schechner & Targan, of counsel).

Mr. William L. Dill, Jr., argued the cause for respondent General Dynamics Corp. (Messrs. Stryker, Tams & Dill, attorneys; Mr. W. Hunt Dumont, of counsel).

Mr. Richard R. Hellstern argued the cause for respondent Art Metal. Inc. (Messrs. Lowenstein, Sandler, Brochin & Kohl, attorneys; Mr. Murry D. Brochin and Mr. Richard R. Hellstern, of counsel).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, 101 N.J. Super. 156.

For affirmance — Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 6.

For reversal — None.

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

Rosenthal v. Art Metal, Inc., 250 A.2d 747, 53 N.J. 344 (N.J. 1969).

250 A.2d 747 (Rosenthal v. Art Metal, Inc.) — 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)