Southland Corp. v. Edison Tp.
This text of 531 A.2d 1361 (Southland Corp. v. Edison Tp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
THE TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND ROSEANNE AMENDOLA, T/A MENLO PARK AMOCO, AMOCO OIL COMPANY & AMOCO CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EDISON AND TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Before Judges GAULKIN, BAIME and ASHBEY.
Peter A. DeSarno argued the cause for appellants.
Lee M. Hymerling argued the cause for respondent The Southland Corporation (Archer & Greiner, attorneys; Lee M. Hymerling, John P. Hauch, Jr. and Christopher R. Gibson, on the brief).
Vincent D. Paragano argued the cause for respondents Roseanne Amendola, Amoco Oil Company and Amoco Corporation (Vincent D. Paragano and Fran J. Garb, on the brief).
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Keefe's opinion reported at 217 N.J. Super. 158 (Ch.Div. 1986).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
531 A.2d 1361, 220 N.J. Super. 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southland-corp-v-edison-tp-njsuperctappdiv-1987.