Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corp.

N.J.

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Citations: 9 N.J. 605, 89 A.2d 242, 1952 N.J. LEXIS 338

Decision Date: 6/16/1952

Jurisdiction: NJ

Bluebook Citation: Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corp., 9 N.J. 605, 89 A.2d 242, 1952 N.J. LEXIS 338 (N.J. 1952)

More Cases: N.J. decisions from 1952


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Frequently CitedTop 11% most-cited · cited by 28 decisions
28
Citing decisions
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

2
15
5
4
2
1970s1980s1990s2000s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.15
N.J.4
3d Cir.3
N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div.3
Bankr. D.N.J.2
7th Cir.1
Most recently cited by10
  • 2024Charles Cuccia v. Local Finance Board N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
  • 2020IN THE MATTER OF DAWN SHYNER, LIEUTENANT 5217 (NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF STATE POLICE) N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
  • 2009LoBiondo v. Schwartz N.J.
  • 2009Brunson v. Affinity Federal Credit Union N.J.
  • 2004Epperson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
  • 2001Wilson v. Amerada Hess Corp. N.J.
  • 1998State v. Pyatt N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
  • 1996Cushman & Wakefield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Alexander Summer Co. N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
  • 1994Giri v. Rutgers Casualty Insurance N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
  • 1993Venuto v. Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi & Stewart, P.C. 3d Cir.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

MAYFLOWER INDUSTRIES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THOR CORPORATION, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, AND TELDISCO, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Attorneys

  • Mr. Meyer E. Ruback argued the cause for the appellant (Messrs. Ruback, Albach & Weisman and Mr. Alfred C. Clapp, attorneys).
  • Mr. Thomas J. Brogan argued the cause for the respondent Thor Corporation.
  • Mr. Sol D. Kapelsohn argued the cause for the respondent Teldisco, Inc. (Messrs. Kapelsohn, Lerner, Leuchter & Reitman, attorneys).
majority Per Curiam.

The orders will be affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinions of Judge Erancis in the court below.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Oliphant, Wachenpeld, Burling, Jacobs and Brennan —6.

For reversal — None.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.