Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 BETA REALTY UNIT 6 LLC. v. TOWNSHIP OF RANDOLPH -- rank: 1000

... under the Fee Act. L. 2009, c. 90, §39 ( N.J.S.A. 40:55D-8.8). However, the Stimulus Act excluded any refund of development fees ... Act, that is, after July 17, 2008. Id. § 39 ( N.J.S.A. 40:55D-8.8). However, as stated earlier, the developer is not entitled to ...

docket:	a3910-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-03-16
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	39257

2 Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. v. Township of Raritan -- rank: 917

... township, however, is at issue between the parties. According to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-8.8(a), “[a] developer of a property that received preliminary ... the effective date of L. 2009, c. 90. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-8.8(a), on August 7, 2009, plaintiff sought a return from ...

docket:	008173-09
court:
decided:	2011-11-03
status:
citation:
Document Size:	30891

3 LIFE TIME FITNESS INC v. BOROUGH OF FLORHAM PARK -- rank: 873

... Stimulus Act), L. 2009, c. 90, § 39, codified at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-8.8. The Stimulus Act required municipalities to refund NRDF's imposed on developers under the Statewide Fee Act. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-8.8. However, for developers who had both committed to paying an ... from the entity to which the fee had been paid. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-8.8. That entity was given thirty days to respond. Ibid. Pursuant ...

docket:	a4208-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2013-04-24
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	29614