From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zentz v. Toop

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 25, 1967
234 A.2d 96 (N.J. 1967)

Opinion

Argued September 11, 1967 —

Decided September 25, 1967.

On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinions are reported at 92 N.J. Super. 105.

Mr. Henry H. Rubenson argued the cause for defendants-appellants and third-party plaintiffs-appellants ( Messrs. Burton, Quackenboss, Axelrod Rubenson, attorneys).

Mr. Vincent D. Enright, Jr. argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent ( Messrs. Harth Enright, attorneys).

Mr. Marshall Selikoff argued the cause for third-party defendant-respondent ( Messrs. Jung Selikoff, attorneys).


The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division. Mr. Justice Proctor and Mr. Justice Haneman vote to reverse the judgment for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS and SCHETTINO — 4.

For reversal — Justices PROCTOR and HANEMAN — 2.


Summaries of

Zentz v. Toop

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 25, 1967
234 A.2d 96 (N.J. 1967)
Case details for

Zentz v. Toop

Case Details

Full title:JACK ZENTZ, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES S. TOOP AND MARION TOOP…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Sep 25, 1967

Citations

234 A.2d 96 (N.J. 1967)
234 A.2d 96

Citing Cases

Wright v. Vill. of Williamsport

" Id. {¶ 36} The Bussie court contrasted the clear visibility of the skylights with the lack of visibility of…

Vallillo v. Muskin Corp.

In this case plaintiff asserts that the allegedly necessary but missing warning would have called attention…