From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldklang v. Metropolitan Life

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Oct 22, 1974
326 A.2d 688 (N.J. 1974)

Opinion

Argued October 8, 1974 —

Decided October 22, 1974.

On appeal from the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Mr. James A. Robottom argued the cause for appellant ( Messrs. Haskins, Robottom and Hack, attorneys).

Mr. Samuel H. Davis argued the cause for the respondent ( Messrs. Dubowsky and Davis, attorneys).


The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by the majority of the Appellate Division.

Two members of the Court would reverse substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Meanor in his dissent reported at 130 N.J. Super. 307 (1974).

For affirmance — Chief Justice HUGHES and Justices JACOBS, SULLIVAN and PASHMAN and Judge CONFORD — 5.

For reversal — Justices HALL and CLIFFORD — 2.


Summaries of

Goldklang v. Metropolitan Life

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Oct 22, 1974
326 A.2d 688 (N.J. 1974)
Case details for

Goldklang v. Metropolitan Life

Case Details

Full title:HARRY GOLDKLANG, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Oct 22, 1974

Citations

326 A.2d 688 (N.J. 1974)
326 A.2d 688

Citing Cases

Raimondi v. Morris Cnty. Park Police & Comm'n

Moreover, the compensation court is itself considered a "tribunal with expertise." Goldklang v. Metro. Life…

Lister v. J.B. Eurell Co.

]See also Lewicki v. N.J. Art Foundry, 88 N.J. 75, 89-90 (1981) (although Workers' Compensation judges are…