Litton Industries, Inc. v. IMO Industries, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
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
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Pickett v. Lloyd'sSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1993
- Packard-Bamberger & Co., Inc. v. CollierSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
- Furst v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
- 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.