Harrison v. Stanton
| Decision Date | 04 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. A--75,A--75 |
| Citation | Harrison v. Stanton, 101 A.2d 554, 14 N.J. 172 (N.J. 1954) |
| Parties | E. Donald HARRISON, petitioner-respondent, v. Edward H. STANTON, respondent-appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 26 N.J.Super. 194.
Arthur F. Mead, Newark, for appellant (Cox & Walburg, Newark, attorneys).
John H. Yauch, J., Newark, for respondent (Gilhooly, Yauch & Fagan, Newark, attorneys).
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, 26 N.J.Super. 194, 97 A.2d 687.
For affirmance: Justices HEHER, WACHENFELD, BURLING, JACOBS and BRENNAN--5.
For reversal: Chief Justice VANDERBILT and Justice OLIPHANT--2.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
13 cases
-
Complitano v. Steel & Alloy Tank Co.
...o.b., 2 N.J. 304, 66 A.2d 158 (1949); Harrison v. Stanton, 26 N.J.Super. 194, 97 A.2d 687 (App.Div.1953), affirmed o.b., 14 N.J. 172, 101 A.2d 554 (1954). In the Kelly v. Hackensack Water Co. case, supra, petitioner was injured at a picnic conducted by the employer for the employees free of......
-
Ricciardi v. Damar Products Co.
...which was approvingly restated in Harrison v. Stanton, 26 N.J.Super. 194, 199, 97 A.2d 687 (App.Div.1953), affirmed 14 N.J. 172, 101 A.2d 554 (1954), namely: (a) the customery nature of the activity; (b) the employer's encouragement or subsidization of the activity; (c) the extent to which ......
-
Tocci v. Tessler & Weiss, Inc.
...Co., 31 N.J.Super. 167, 106 A.2d 23 (App.Div.1954); Harrison v. Stanton, 26 N.J.Super. 194, 97 A.2d 687 (App.Div.1953), affirmed 14 N.J. 172, 101 A.2d 554 (1954). Compare Stevens v. Essex Fells Country Club, 136 N.J.L. 656, 57 A.2d 469 (Sup.Ct.1948), Winter v. Industrial Accident Commission......
-
Mikkelsen v. N. L. Industries
...292, 200 A.2d 313 (1964) (company baseball game); Harrison v. Stanton, 26 N.J.Super. 194, 97 A.2d 687 (App.Div.1953); aff'd o.b. 14 N.J. 172, 101 A.2d 554 (1954) (social event serving public relations purposes of employer); Du Charme v. Columbia Engineering Co., 31 N.J.Super. 167, 106 A.2d ......
Get Started for Free