From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Penthouse Int'l Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 2, 1982
184 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 1982)

Opinion

Argued December 15, 1981 —

Decided April 2, 1982.

Before Judges MATTHEWS, PRESSLER and PETRELLA.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, whose opinion is reported in 179 N.J. Super. 155.

Patrick C. English argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant ( Dines English, attorneys; Patrick C. English on the briefs). William L. Dill, Jr. argued the cause for defendant-respondent ( Stryker, Tams Dill, attorneys; Charles H. Friedrich on the brief).


The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lester in his opinion which is reported in 179 N.J. Super. 155.

Absent proof that the process of defendant is akin to a monopoly or constitutes by analogy a public utility, we agree that defendant may assert the conditions here involved when accepting film for processing.


Summaries of

Penthouse Int'l Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Apr 2, 1982
184 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 1982)
Case details for

Penthouse Int'l Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Case Details

Full title:PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-RESPONDENT, v…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Apr 2, 1982

Citations

184 N.J. Super. 130 (App. Div. 1982)
445 A.2d 428

Citing Cases

Penthouse International Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Company

Cross-petition for certification denied. (See 184 N.J. Super. 130)…

Penthouse International Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Company

Petition for certification denied. (See 184 N.J. Super. 130)…