Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corp.
Mayflower Industries, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thor Corporation, an Illinois Corporation, and Teldisco, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendants-Respondents
Mayflower Indus. v. Thor Corp., 89 A.2d 242 (N.J. 1952)
Opinion
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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
("What a person's intentions were need not be proved from what he said, but they may be inferred from all that he did and said, and from all the surrounding circumstances of the situation under investigation.")
-
(interference with proposed distributorship agreement by threats of groundless litigation)
Cited by 70 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Charles Cuccia v. Local Finance Board
- Charles Cuccia v. Local Finance Board
- In re DAWN SHYNER, LIEUTENANT 5217 (NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF STATE POLICE)
- In re DR. ALLISON KELLISH, UNION COUNTY COLLEGE (BOARD OF TRUSTEES, UNION COUNTY COLLEGE)
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services
- LoBiondo v. Schwartz
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.