Case Name: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1969-02-03
Citations: 53 N.J. 248
Docket Number: 
Parties: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 248–250

Head Matter:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued January 7, 1969
Decided February 3, 1969.
Mr. James Hunter, III argued the cause for appellant (Messrs. Archer, Greiner, Hunter & Read, attorneys; Mr. Charles Lee Harp, Jr., on the brief).
Mr. Joseph A. Hoffman, Eirst Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. Stephen Slcillman. Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

Opinion:
Pee Ctjeiam :
Subsequent to the entry of the orders appealed from, the defendant brought itself into sufficient compliance. Despite this, the plaintiff presses its contention that the orders were valid when made and were properly upheld in the Appellate Division, and that the defendant's appeal should therefore now be rejected. We agree and affirm for the reasons expressed by Judge Goldmann in his comprehensive opinion for the Appellate Division, reported at 100 N. J. Super. 366 (App. Div. 1968).
Affirmed.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintkaub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Hall and Schettino — 5.
For reversal — None.