Legal Opinion
RM v. Supreme Court of New Jersey
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided March 26, 2007PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rivera-Soto
In this appeal, we review the methodology to be applied in respect of applications for counsel fees and costs in those instances where fee-shifting is permitted. We reaffirm that when a motion for counsel fees and costs is properly presented, the trial court must exercise its discretion within careful confines to determine the “lodestar” — that is, the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate — and then determine whether any adjustments to the product are required.
I
Plaintiff R.M. filed an action challenging certain provisions of Rule 1:20-9, which mandated…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blum v. StensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- City of Riverside v. RiveraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Dolores J. Copeland, Individually and on Behalf of the Class of All Others Similarly Situated v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of LaborCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean AirSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Robert Occhifinto v. Olivo Construction Co., LLC (073174)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2015
- Andre De Garmeaux v. Dnv Concepts, Inc. T/aNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2016
- City of Englewood v. Exxon Mobile Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2009
- Triffin v. ADPNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2010
- Kaye v. RosefieldeNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2013
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.