LEVINE

v.

BUSICK ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Draper v. Airco, Inc., 580 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1978)
  …9 n. 17 (E.D.Pa.1977); Havens v. Tonner, 243 Pa.Super. 371, 365 A. 2d 1271 (1976). The clearest indication of New Jersey’s rule on the choice of law with respect to damages is in Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 307 A. 2d 571 (1973), appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106, 94 S.Ct. 831, 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973). The issues there were whether the Supreme Court rule authorizing prejudgment interest in tort actions was valid and, if so, whether that rule should be applied retroactively. Since it was argued that the Suprem…
• Jarvis v. Johnson, 668 F.2d 740 (3d Cir. 1982)
  …sey’s prejudgment interest rule should be applied in a federal district court sitting in New Jersey. The district court opinion in Huddell relied on Chief Justice Weintraub’s analysis in Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 307 A. 2d 571, appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106, 94 S.Ct. 831, 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld its prejudgment interest provision as a valid procedural rule. The district court nevertheless recognized the rule’s substantive impact on a plaintiff’s damages and h…
• Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Snead, 441 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1979)
  …menting Co. v. Reily, 373 U. S. 64, 69-70 (1963); Gregg Dyeing Co. v. Query, 286 U. S. 472, 480 (1932); Public Utility Dist. No. 8 v. State, 82 Wash. 2d 232, 239-240, 510 P. 2d 206, 210-211, appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 414 U. S. 1106 (1973).…