Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

31 BARRATT V. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF NEW JERSEY, INC. -- rank: 699

... find "`that the [discrimination] charge was brought in bad faith.'" N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1." -II-     Ten years ago, the Legislature adopted CEPA . In CEPA ...

docket:	a-128-95
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1996-05-12
status:
citation:	144 N.J. 120
Document Size:	35386

32 Wilman Pinto and Alvaro Vasquez v. Spectrum Chemicals -- rank: 697

... in a number of statutory schemes, such as the LAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1, CEPA, N.J.S.A. 34:19-5, and the ...

docket:	a-94-08
court:	supreme
decided:	2010-01-21
status:
citation:	200 N.J. 580 985 A.2d 1239
Document Size:	105961

33 PAUL HENNIGAN v. MERCK & CO., INC -- rank: 691

... award of counsel fees and costs pursuant to the LAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1, and the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A ... and costs relating to plaintiff's LAD claim, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. The court cited to the lack of any evidence plaintiff ... determination that the complainant brought the charge in bad faith." N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. Neither the statute nor the Supreme Court has expressly defined ...

docket:	a5866-13
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2016-09-28
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	53066

34 BOBBIE HUMPHRIES v. POWDER MILL SHOPPING PLAZA -- rank: 691

... §12205, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. After considering the contentions raised on appeal in light of ... that provide for granting counsel fees to the prevailing party. N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1; 42 U.S.C.A. § 12205. The Supreme Court ... a settlement or consent decree is a prevailing party under N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1 of the LAD." Tarr v. Ciasulli , 181 N.J. 70 ...

docket:	a6038-08
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-11-04
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	51586

35 JASON CUTLER v. THEODORE DORN, ROBERT SHREVE -- rank: 688

... for imposition of fees and costs against plaintiff pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. Haddonfield moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (nov) as to ... He also moved for counsel fees and costs pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. Finally, he moved for equitable relief, seeking an order requiring ...

docket:	a5512-02
court:	njappellate
decided:	2007-02-02
status:	published
citation:	390 N.J. Super. 238
Document Size:	89102

36 Hernandez v. Region Nine Housing Corp. -- rank: 685

... The Director also has the power to award attorney fees. N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. A determination by the DCR is a "final order" and ...

docket:	a-33-96
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1996-11-26
status:
citation:	146 N.J. 645
Document Size:	46268

37 New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium v. New Jersey Department of Corrections -- rank: 679

... S.A. 56:8-19, to instances of discriminatory treatment, N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1, the New Jersey Legislature has promulgated a “substantial number of ... fee-shifting provision of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1, in Rendine v. Pantzer , 141 N.J. 292 (1995). Rendine ...

docket:	a-63-04
court:	njsupreme
decided:	2005-08-15
status:
citation:	185 N.J. 137
Document Size:	65160

38 ROBERT L. LOCKLEY, JR. v. RONDA TURNER, -- rank: 664

... under LAD are entitled to recover a reasonable counsel fee. N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. Calculating a reasonable counsel fee is a multi-step process ...

docket:	A1783-99
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2001-08-10
status:	published
citation:
Document Size:	64861

39 EVELYN RIVERA F/K/A EVELYN BENJAMIN v. SALERNO DUANE, INC., et al. -- rank: 664

... LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49, N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1, and held that "[i]n the case of a nominal ...

docket:	a5822-05
court:	njappellate
decided:	2007-06-22
status:	unpublished
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	54008

40 ROBERT L. LOCKLEY, JR. v. RONDA TURNER, -- rank: 661

... under LAD are entitled to recover a reasonable counsel fee. N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. Calculating a reasonable counsel fee is a multi-step process ...

docket:	A1835-99
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2001-08-10
status:	published
citation:	344 N.J. Super. 1 779 A.2d 109
Document Size:	64949

41 ISAAC ASHWAL, et al. v. PRESTIGE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., et al. -- rank: 658

... Attorneys fees were subsequently awarded to plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. Defendants moved for a new trial, raising criticisms of the ...

docket:	a4629-05
court:	njappellate
decided:	2007-10-16
status:	unpublished
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	154619

42 IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER DENIAL OF POOL ATTORNEY STATUS TO WILLIAM GRAVES -- rank: 655

... result in an award of counsel fees against OPD. See N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1 (permitting counsel fee award to prevailing party in an LAD ...

docket:	a0239-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	0000-00-00
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	35750

43 ROBERT SHEARN, III v. VICTORIANA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION -- rank: 655

... 5-17; an award of treble damages, ibid. ; counsel fees, N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1; and statutory penalties, N.J.S.A. 10:5-14 ...

docket:	a1327-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-11-23
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	41766

44 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a0830-20.opn.html -- rank: 655

... of the LAD . . . . We conclude that a liberal construction of N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1, to promote the goal of ending discrimination, includes contingency fee ...

docket:
court:	NJ Superior Court Law/Chancery Division
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	29995

45 LESZEK ZAJAC v. RAMSEY OFFICE COURT, LLC -- rank: 649

... determination that the complainant brought the charge in bad faith.' N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. A-1641-19T2 6 Plaintiff also sought counsel fees and ... a settlement or consent decree is a prevailing party under N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1 of the LAD.' Tarr v. Ciasulli, 181 N.J. 70 ... his LAD claims. Therefore, he was a 'prevailing party' under N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1. Tarr, 181 N.J. at 86-87. Plaintiff argues that ...

docket:	a1641-19
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2020-11-19
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	32637