Teitelbaum v. Massachusetts Accident Co.
184 A. 808, 116 N.J.L. 417
Opinion
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered in the Supreme Court. It should, however, be noted that the plaintiff below admitted that he treated about four patients a week and not four patients a day as inadvertently stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Chief Justice, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Hetfield, Deae, Wells, WolfsKeil, JJ. 10.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Teitelbaum v. Massachusetts Accident Co., 184 A. 808, 116 N.J.L. 417 (N.J. 1936).
184 A. 808 (Teitelbaum v. Massachusetts Accident Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Anzano v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
32 F. Supp. 417 (D. New Jersey, 1940)
Parnes v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
1 A.2d 26 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1938)