1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 208 N.J.
  5. 208 N.J. Super. 207 (1986)
 

TAYLOR EX REL. WURGAFT v. GENERAL ELEC. CO.

208 N.J. Super. 207 (1986)

505 A.2d 190

JEFFREY TAYLOR, AN INFANT, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JACK WURGAFT, ESQ., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND THE CLOROX COMPANY, ELIZABETHTOWN GAS COMPANY, AND ABATE AMOCO STATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND AMOCO OIL CORP., FRANK J. TAYLOR AND HAZEL TAYLOR, DEFENDANTS. JAMES TAYLOR, AN INFANT BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MICHAEL BLACKER, ESQ., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND THE CLOROX COMPANY, ELIZABETHTOWN GAS COMPANY, AND ABATE AMOCO STATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND AMOCO OIL CORP., FRANK J. TAYLOR AND HAZEL TAYLOR, DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided February 13, 1986.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Bernard Chazen argued the cause for the appellant Jeffrey Taylor (Weiner, Ostrager, Fieldman & Zucker, attorneys).

Kenneth S. Javerbaum argued the cause for the appellant James Taylor (Javerbaum & Wurgaft, attorneys).

James P. Richardson argued the cause for the appellant General Electric Company (Sellar, Richardson & Stuart, attorneys).

Joseph DiRienzo argued the cause for the respondent The Clorox Company.

John D. North argued the cause for the respondent Elizabethtown Gas Company (MacKenzie, Welt, Duane & Maher, attorneys; Dennis J. Barrett on the brief).

Kenneth R. Russell argued the cause for the respondent Abate Amoco Station (Lynch, Mannion, Martin, Benitz & Lynch, attorneys; Thomas B. Mannion of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges FURMAN, PETRELLA and COHEN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by FURMAN, P.J.A.D.

Both infant plaintiffs and defendant General Electric Company (GE) appeal from summary judgments in favor of defendants The Clorox Company (Clorox) and Elizabethtown Gas Company (Elizabethtown), which, although interlocutory, were certified by the trial court as final judgments. Defendant GE appeals without leave of court from the denial of summary judgment in its favor, also an interlocutory order.

...

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