N.J. TRANSIT v. CAT IN THE HAT


826 A.2d 690 (2003)

177 N.J. 29

NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORPORATION, a body corporate and politic, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CAT IN THE HAT, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, and The State of New Jersey, and the City of Trenton, Defendants. New Jersey Transit Corporation, a body corporate and politic, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The Goldman, Popkin, Caputi, Hegedus and Carom Partnership, a New Jersey General Partnership, T/A Best-Spot Parking, Goldmann, Popkin, Caputi, Hegedus and Carom, a New Jersey General Partnership, T/A Best Spot Parking, Goldmann, Popkin, Hegedus and Carom, a New Jersey General Partnership, T/A Best-Spot Parking, Best-Spot Parking Lot, a New Jersey Partnership, T/A Best Spot Parking Lot, Ruth Carom, a/k/a Ruth H. Carom, Partner, Barbara Caputi, Partner, Beatrice Goldman, a/k/a Beatrice Goldmann, Partner, Carmela Hegedus, a/k/a Carmella Hegedus, Partner, and Ruth Popkin, a/k/a Ruth C. Popkin, Partner, Defendants-Appellants, and City of Trenton, Defendant. State of New Jersey, by the Commissioner of Transportation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Sandra E. Eisen, Defendant-Appellant, and Adams Perfect Funeral Home, Inc., a Corporation of New Jersey, and City of Jersey City, in the County of Hudson, a Municipal Corporation of New Jersey, Defendant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided July 10, 2003.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Edward D. McKirdy, Morristown, argued the cause for appellants (McKirdy and Riskin, attorneys; Mr. McKirdy and L. Jeffrey Lewis, on the briefs).

Maureen Hinchliffe Bonney, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Peter C. Harvey, Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Patrick DeAlmeida, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel).


The opinion of the Court was delivered by LONG, J.

In these consolidated condemnation cases, we are called on to determine whether a trial court may enter an order in an eminent domain proceeding that preserves a governmental condemnor's ability to bring a separate cost-recovery action against a condemnee for cleanup of contamination and if so, whether that order also may bar the condemnee from later raising the preclusionary defenses of res judicata, collateral...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases