Mc Kee v. Harris-Seybold Co.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025MCLAREN D.N.J.
- 2023PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY v. COOPER INDUSTRIES, LLC D.N.J.
- 2023BOLINGER v. 24TH STREET, INC. D.N.J.
- 2019BOOTH MOVERS LTD VS. SLEEPABLE SOFAS LTD (L-4341-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 2018Babulal, et al. v. Dynamic Metals Processing, Inc., et al. N.J. Super. Ct.
- 2006Perceptron, Inc. v. Silicon Video, Inc. E.D. Mich.
- 2004Portfolio Financial Servicing Co. v. Sharemax.com, Inc. D.N.J.
- 2002Cargo Partner AG v. Albatrans Inc. S.D.N.Y.
- 2001Arevalo v. Saginaw Machine Systems, Inc. N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
- 1999Potwora v. Grip N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
EDWARD B. MC KEE AND BARBARA MC KEE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. HARRIS-SEYBOLD COMPANY, DIVISION OF HARRIS-INTERTYPE CORP., SEYBOLD MACHINE CO., CARL W. HAGMAN, DEFENDANTS, MIEHLE-GOSS-DEXTER, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Attorneys
- Mr. Norman S. Gostanm argued the cause for appellant, Miehle-Goss-Dexter, Inc.
- Mr. Joseph J. MacDonald argued the cause for respondents, Edward B. McKee and Barbara McKee (Messrs. Harrison, Hartman and MacDonald, attorneys).
The trial judge’s rulings from which defendant appeals not having been shown to be prejudicial and a review of the record disclosing neither prejudice nor error as alleged by appellant in the court’s comments during trial, the judgment in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed.
Plaintiffs also urge that under the recently adopted R. 4:42-ll(b) (effective January 31, 1912) interest should be allowed on the amounts of the judgment from February o, 1969, the date of the institution of the action. We hold this rule does not apply retroactively to judgments entered prior to its effective date.