Legal Opinion
Rich v. State
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided October 12, 1979PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
O’NEIL, J. S. C.
A post-judgment motion requires interpretation of a previously unconstrued section of the 1972 Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:9-5, which provides that
In any action brought against a public entity or a public employee under this act, the court may, in its discretion, award a successful claimant (a) costs ordinarily allowable in the private sector (b) expert witness fees not exceeding a total of $100.00 and (c) reasonable attorney’s fees; provided however that there *93shall be no such recovery in any case where damages are awarded for pain and suffering.
The suit was brought by a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Martin v. Hunter's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- Malloy v. StateSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1978
- Kelly v. RoetzelSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- Strother v. Union Pac. R.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1915
- Wetmore v. WrynnConnecticut Superior Court · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Fuchilla v. LaymanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1988
- Clement v. Consolidated Rail Corp.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1990
- Fuchilla v. LaymanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1988