Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Litton Industries, Inc. v. IMO Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided November 2, 2009No. A-10/11 September Term 2008Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Rivera-Soto

This is a contract case.

That obvious, self-evident statement bears repeating because it is at odds with the two basic conclusions advanced by the majority in its counsel fee-shifting analysis: that, in a contract action where the measure of damages includes counsel fees, (1) recovery can be had on unsuccessful claims—claims on which no breach of contract has occurred—when they share a “common core” of facts or related legal theories with unsuccessful claims, ante at 387-88, 982 A.2d at 429,1 and (2) after the lodestar is ascertained, a contractual award of counsel fees nevertheless must be…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Pickett v. Lloyd'sSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1993
  3. Packard-Bamberger & Co., Inc. v. CollierSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
  4. Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
  5. North Bergen Rex Transport, Inc. v. Trailer Leasing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1999

24 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