184 N.J. Super. 130

PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL LTD., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, CROSS-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued December 15, 1981

Decided April 2, 1982.

Before Judges MATTHEWS, PRESSLER and PETRELLA.

Patrick C. English argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (Dines & English, attorneys; Patrick C. English on the briefs).

*131William L. Dill, Jr. argued the cause for defendant-respondent (Stryker, Tams & Dill, attorneys; Charles H. Friedrich on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

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.

Penthouse International Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
184 N.J. Super. 130

Case Details

Name
Penthouse International Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
Decision Date
Apr 2, 1982
Citations

184 N.J. Super. 130

Jurisdiction
New Jersey

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!