Case Law Summaries

Ernest Bock & Sons, Inc. v. Mercer County Improvement Authority

PUBLIC BIDDING — A public bid form requiring that a bidder provide the names and addresses of owners with a greater than ten percent interest is not satisfied merely by the bidder having previously filed such a statement with another bidding agency even if that statement is a matter of public record.

• Opinion Date: February 18, 2010
• Real Property Law

In Re Riverview Development, LLC

WATERFRONT PERMITS; APPEALS — To appeal the issuance of a waterfront permit by the Department of Environmental Protection, a third party must demonstrate a particularized property interest sufficient to require a hearing on either constitutional or statutory grounds because an obligation imposed on the Office of Administrative Law to review concerns that are not unique to the objector would cause the process of permit applications by state agencies to be come bogged time by time-consuming and costly formal hearings.

• Opinion Date: January 27, 2010
• Real Property Law

Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Ace Gaming, LLC

LICENSE AGREEMENTS; LIQUIDATED DAMAGES — Termination fees based on what the remaining licensee’s fee would have been under a trademark license are not unenforceable liquidated damages because the licensee would have to have paid the license fees had the license agreement not been terminated by reason of the licensee’s default.

• Opinion Date: May 24, 2010
• Business Law

Verizon New Jersey, Inc. v. One Washington Park Urban Renewal Association

CONTRACTS; ATTORNEYS FEES — When an award of attorney’s fees is contractually authorized, the award does not mechanically encompass the full fee charged, but is limited to what is reasonable under the circumstances; therefore, an initial question to be answered in determining whether a given counsel fee award is reasonable is whether the party seeking the fee prevailed in the litigation.

• Opinion Date: May 18, 2010
• Business Law

Georgiadis v. Georgiadis

CORPORATIONS; DEADLOCKED REMEDIES — Where a court institutes a receivership as a remedy for deadlock or in a case of shareholder oppression, and that remedy permits one of the shareholders to buy the entire corporation, that shareholder may lose the right to buy the corporation if it allows the permitted time period to pass and this is true even if the untimely acting shareholder offers to match a later purchase offer from an unrelated third party.

• Opinion Date: January 12, 2010
• Business Law

First Atlantic Federal Credit Union v. Pine Belt Automotive, Inc.

ARBITRATION — Where an agreement contains an arbitration provision limited to “this agreement,” and other, unrelated agreements do not contain an arbitration provision, disputes under those other agreements will not be subject to arbitration because private parties can only be compelled to arbitrate to the extent they have agreed to do so.

• Opinion Date: February 19, 2010
• Business Law

Kim & Bae, P.C. v. Eunsung Electric, Co., Ltd.

ATTORNEYS FEES — Where a law firm represents itself in an action, it is, in essence, acting pro se and the fees a law firm might charge itself are not strictly speaking attorneys fees and therefore the law firm is not entitled to collect those fees pursuant to a contractual provision or pursuant to Court Rules.

• Opinion Date: April 30, 2010
• Business Law

GMAC v. Pittella

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT; ARBITRATION — When an arbitration agreement does not clearly or ambiguously demonstrate that a customer intended to waive his or her right to litigate under the Consumer Fraud Act, requiring arbitration would not be fair or equitable.

• Opinion Date: May 26, 2010
• Business Law

Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon

CONDEMNATION; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — Even though the statute of limitations to pursue an action for just compensation is governed by a six-year statute of limitations, where the condemning authority continued to insist that no taking had taken place, and then shifts gears years later to claim that there was a taking, the statute of limitations for filing an inverse condemnation action will not be enforced.

• Opinion Date: June 22, 2010
• Real Property Law

Old Corlies Avenue Preservation Association v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Twsp. of Neptune

ZONING — Where an applicant’s proposal does not call for subdivision of its property and the applicant’s proposed use is similar to those on nearby properties, a land use board, in granting variances, is not rezoning by means of granting variances, but is performing its proper function in a typical application for variances.

• Opinion Date: May 25, 2010
• Real Property Law