Strube v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois
Nancy Strube, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois (t.I.L.) Individually and D/B/A the Travelers Companies, Webster M. Grimm and C.I.A.P.N.J., Defendants-Respondents
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Baime’s opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 277 N.J.Super. 236 , 649 A.2d 624 (1994).
Dissent
STEIN and COLEMAN, Justices,
dissenting.
We would reverse, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Kestin’s dissenting opinion, reported at 277 N.J.Super. 236 , 649 A.2d 624 (1994).
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN and GARIBALDI-5.
For reversal — Justices STEIN and COLEMAN-2.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
142 N.J. 570 (1995) 667 A.2d 188
NANCY STRUBE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS (T.I.L.) INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, WEBSTER M. GRIMM AND C.I.A.P.N.J., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued October 23, 1995. Decided December 6, 1995.
Craig J. Hubert argued the cause for appellant ( Brotman & Graziano, attorneys; Mr. Hubert and Dennis S. Brotman, of counsel and on the brief).
Michele M. Fox argued the cause for respondent The Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, etc. ( Kenney & Kearney, attorneys; Ms. Fox and Ralph R. Smith, 3rd, on the brief).
C. Edward Speidel argued the cause for respondent Webster H. Grimm, improperly pleaded as Webster M. Grimm ( Golden, Rothschild, Spagnola & DiFazio, attorneys).
Marc L. Dembling argued the cause for respondent C.I.A.P.N.J. ( Berlin, Kaplan, Dembling & Burke, attorneys).
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Baime's opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 277 N.J. Super. 236 , 649 A.2d 624 (1994).
STEIN and COLEMAN, Justices, dissenting.
We would reverse, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Kestin's dissenting opinion, reported at 277 N.J. Super. 236 , 649 A.2d 624 (1994).
For affirmance Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN and GARIBALDI-5.
For reversal Justices STEIN and COLEMAN-2.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(adopting “the only sensible interpretation” of a statute)
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.