Toebe v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL OF WAUSAU

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Toebe v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL OF WAUSAU

306 A.2d 66, 63 N.J. 198, 1973 N.J. LEXIS 174

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 19, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 306 A.2d 66 (Toebe v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL OF WAUSAU) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Toebe v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL OF WAUSAU, 306 A.2d 66, 63 N.J. 198, 1973 N.J. LEXIS 174 (N.J. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We granted certification, 58 N. J. 599 (1971), to review the judgment of the Appellate Division in this matter, 114 N. J. Super. 39 (1971). Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the amount of plaintiff’s claim against the defendant carrier was to be determined under Minnesota law in a proceeding in the State of Minnesota, under terms ensuring a judgment on the merits in that State. We are advised that the terms of our order have since been met, and this brings into play the provision of our order

(4) that upon the satisfaction of such judgment in the State of Minnesota, the proceedings before this Court shall be terminated by an order reversing the judgment of the Appellate Division and directing the dismissal of the proceedings in this State against the defendant carrier, all such orders in this State to be entered without costs in favor of any party.

It is so ordered.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Jacobs, Peoctoe, Hall, Mountain, Sullivan and G-arven —7.

For affirmance — None.

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

Per Curiam.

We granted certification, 58 N. J. 599 (1971), to review the judgment of the Appellate Division in this matter, 114 N. J. Super. 39 (1971). Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the amount of plaintiff’s claim against the defendant carrier was to be determined under Minnesota law in a proceeding in the State of Minnesota, under terms ensuring a judgment on the merits in that State. We are advised that the terms of our order have since been met, and this brings into play the provision of our order

(4) that upon the satisfaction of such judgment in the State of Minnesota, the proceedings before this Court shall be terminated by an order reversing the judgment of the Appellate Division and directing the dismissal of the proceedings in this State against the defendant carrier, all such orders in this State to be entered without costs in favor of any party.

It is so ordered.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Jacobs, Peoctoe, Hall, Mountain, Sullivan and G-arven —7.

For affirmance — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.2d 66, 63 N.J. 198, 1973 N.J. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toebe-v-employers-mutual-of-wausau-nj-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack