Legal Opinion

Hudson County Chamber of Commerce v. City of Jersey City

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided April 9, 1998PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in that court’s opinion. 310 N.J.Super. 208, 708 A.2d 699 (1997). However, we conclude that prejudgment interest should not have been awarded. Because Jersey City is a governmental entity and interest is not provided for by statute, “particular circumspection” in the granting of prejudgment interest is required, and “a showing of overriding and compelling equitable reasons” is essential to justify the award. Board of Educ. v. Levitt, 197 N.J.Super. 239, 244, 484 A.2d 723 (App.Div. 1984). In our view, no…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. BD. OF EDUC., CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX v. LevittNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
  2. Hudson County Chamber of Commerce v. City of Jersey CityNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1997

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. City of Jersey City v. FarmerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000
  2. In Re Estate of LashNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000
  3. Van Note-Harvey Associates, P.C. v. Township of East HanoverSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2003
  4. Everest Reinsurance Co. v. Newark Division of Tax Abatement & Special TaxesNew Jersey Tax Court · 1998
  5. Fireman's Fund Insurance v. LopezNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API