Case Name: RUDOLPH LAIDLOW AND JEAN LAIDLOW, PLAINTIFFS, v. HARITON MACHINERY COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND RICHARD PORTMAN AND ADVANCED METALLURGY AMI-DDC INC., A DIVISION OF TECHNITROL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2002-02-25
Citations: 171 N.J. 334
Docket Number: 
Parties: RUDOLPH LAIDLOW AND JEAN LAIDLOW, PLAINTIFFS, v. HARITON MACHINERY COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND RICHARD PORTMAN AND ADVANCED METALLURGY AMI-DDC INC., A DIVISION OF TECHNITROL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 171
Pages: 334–334

Head Matter:
793 A.2d 714
RUDOLPH LAIDLOW AND JEAN LAIDLOW, PLAINTIFFS, v. HARITON MACHINERY COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND RICHARD PORTMAN AND ADVANCED METALLURGY AMI-DDC INC., A DIVISION OF TECHNITROL, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
February 25, 2002.

Opinion:
ORDER
This matter having come before the Court on an appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 2:2-1(a)(1), and the Court having determined that the matter does not present a substantial constitutional question within the meaning of the Rule or applicable caselaw;
It is ORDERED that the within appeal is dismissed.