STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

250 A.2d 11, 53 N.J. 248, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 244

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 3, 1969·Published·Cited by 28 cases

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam :

Subsequent to the entry of the orders appealed from, the defendant brought itself into sufficient compliance. Despite this, the plaintiff presses its contention that the orders were valid when made and were properly upheld in the Appellate Division, and that the defendant's appeal should therefore now be rejected. We agree and affirm for the reasons expressed by Judge Goldmann in his comprehensive opinion for the Appellate Division, reported at 100 N. J. Super. 366 (App. Div. 1968).

Affirmed.

*250 For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintkaub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Hall and Schettino — 5.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Ctjeiam :

Subsequent to the entry of the orders appealed from, the defendant brought itself into sufficient compliance. Despite this, the plaintiff presses its contention that the orders were valid when made and were properly upheld in the Appellate Division, and that the defendant's appeal should therefore now be rejected. We agree and affirm for the reasons expressed by Judge Goldmann in his comprehensive opinion for the Appellate Division, reported at 100 N. J. Super. 366 (App. Div. 1968).

Affirmed.

*250 For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintkaub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Hall and Schettino — 5.

For reversal — None.

STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 250 A.2d 11, 53 N.J. 248, 1969 N.J. LEXIS 244 (N.J. 1969).

Pincite

250 A.2d 11 (STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related