1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 91 N.J.
  5. 91 N.J. Super. 591 (1966)
 

KLIGMAN v. WILFRED COMPANY OF NEWARK, INC.

91 N.J. Super. 591 (1966)

222 A.2d 31

BERTHA KLIGMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILFRED COMPANY OF NEWARK, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND BONAT, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided July 18, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. Stanley M. Teich argued the cause for defendant-appellant (Messrs. Harkavy and Lieb, attorneys).

Mr. David J. Meshulam argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent.

Mr. Jay M. Liebman argued the cause for defendant-respondent (Messrs. Schneider & Morgan, attorneys).

Before Judges GAULKIN, LABRECQUE and BROWN.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff recovered judgment upon a verdict against Wilfred Company of Newark, Inc. (hereafter Wilfred) for injury sustained as a result of a "permanent wave" treatment, and Wilfred appeals.

In Hewitt v. Hollahan, 56 N.J.Super. 372, 377 (App. Div. 1959) we said:

"From time to time we have been compelled to point out that imprecise pleadings often lead to error. Cf. State v. Arbus...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases