Skip to main content



Griffith v. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

CONDEMNATION; REGULATORY TAKINGS—A property owner is not entitled to compensation for the period between what would have been a regulatory taking and the time that the regulatory authority makes an effective amelioration offer.

County of Ocean v. DeDreux

CONDEMNATION; PROOFS—In a condemnation matter, neither party has the burden of proof; a jury is required to resolve contested issues by a preponderance of the believable evidence.

State of New Jersey v. Trap Rock Industries, Inc.

CONDEMNATION; HIGHWAYS—The Department of Transportation has the authority to condemn land remote from a highway for the purpose of achieving environmental mitigation.

Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Katz

CONDEMNATION—A condemning authority that fails to engage in bona fide negotiations with a property owner may not institute a condemnation suit.

Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Lustgarten

CONDEMNATION; EXPERTS—A court in a condemnation matter should allow expert testimony to rebut the credibility of the other party’s testifying expert.

Township of South Brunswick v. S.B. Land Restoration Corp.

CONDEMNATION; EASEMENTS—A municipality may reasonably determine that a particular drainage path is needed for the public good, and once having done so, taking the land as an easement can be a valid public purpose under eminent domain law.

Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Marks

CONDEMNATION; ATTORNEYS FEES—Court Rules do not mandate the award of attorneys’ fees in condemnation cases even if the condemning authority rejects an offer from a condemnee and the court awards a higher sum.

Burlington Outlet Mart Partnership v. Burlington County Bridge Commission

CONDEMNATION—An owner has a duty to preserve the value of its property after a threatened condemnation is rescinded.

Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Hauck

CONDEMNATION—Interest on a condemnation award runs from the date of the commencement of the action, but in times of great rate fluctuations, it may differ from that set by Court Rule.

Wise v. Bloomfield College

CHARITABLE IMMUNITY—A student is no less a beneficiary of a college’s benefactions just because injuries resulted from a fall in a dormitory shower; thus, charitable immunity still protects the college.

Page 494 of 600 pages « First  < 492 493 494 495 496 >  Last »

MEISLIK & MEISLIK
66 Park Street • Montclair, New Jersey 07042
tel: 973-783-3000 • fax: 973-744-5757 • info@meislik.com