Legal Opinion

Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Hauck

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 3, 2000PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

On certification granted, 160 N.J. 476, 734 A.2d 791 (1999), Walter and Virginia Hauck, property owners in Atlantic City, challenge the interest portion of a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a condemnation action instituted against them by the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority. More particularly, they claim that the trial judge erred in failing to grant' interest as of the date of the valuation of the property and in applying the rate of interest prescribed in Rule 4:42-11. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division in Judge Baime’s opinion…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Washington Market Enterprises, Inc. v. City of TrentonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1975
  2. Township of West Windsor v. NierenbergSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
  3. TWP. OF WAYNE v. CassatlyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975
  4. New Jersey Highway Authority v. EllisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1957
  5. CASINO REINVESTMENT DEV. v. HauckNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1999

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. City of Orange Tp. v. EMPIRE MORTG. SERVICESNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2001
  2. City of Englewood v. Exxon Mobile Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2009
  3. Asbury Park v. Asbury Park TowersNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2006
  4. Saddle River v. 66 EAST ALLENDALE.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2012
  5. Township of West Windsor v. NierenbergNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2001

2 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