Strube v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Evangelou v. Terzano (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)
- Pizzullo v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance (N.J. 2008)
- Pizzullo v. NJ Mfrs. Ins. Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007)
- RCN of New Jersey, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation (New Jersey Tax Court 2006)
- Pulley v. Legreide (In re Pulley) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey 2003)
- MacKenzie v. New Jersey Automobile Full Insurance Underwriting Ass'n (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)
- Avery v. Wysocki (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997)
- KEMP BY WRIGHT v. State (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996)
- Dc v. Fr (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996)
- Saunders v. TOMS RIVER REG. SCHOOLS (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996)
- State v. James (N.J. 1996)
- D.C. v. F.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996)
- Carmody v. Dority (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995)
- PAUL J. BANACH VS. ALEX TARAKANOV(L-6238-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.