Caruso v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Paul Caruso, Appellant, v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., Etc., Respondent
Caruso v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins., 57 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1948)
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed in the Supreme Court.
*601 For affirmance- — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Colie, Wachenfeld, Eastwood, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 14.
For reversal — None.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“The law will not make a better contract for the parties than they themselves have seen fit to enter into.... ”)
Cited by 29 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Pennbarr Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America
- Pennbarr Corp. Kilbarr Corp., in 91-5607 v. Insurance Company of North America, in 91-5608
- Conway v. 287 Corporate Center Associates
- Diamond Shamrock Chemicals v. Aetna
- Royal Insurance Co. of America v. KSI Trading Corp.
- Crockett & Myers, Ltd. v. NAPIER, FITZGERALLD & KIRBY, LLP
Most recent
- COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY v. ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
- Atlantic Health System, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance
- Royal Insurance Co. of America v. KSI Trading Corp.
- Royal Ins Co of Amer v. KSI Trading Corp
- Crockett & Myers, Ltd. v. NAPIER, FITZGERALLD & KIRBY, LLP
- Conway v. 287 Corporate Center Associates
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.