Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Porreca v. City of Millvillegreen2 sentences2025Before us, plaintiffs fail to establish they are entitled 2 As best we can discern from the record, when the parties have employed the term "litigation fund," it appears they are referring to the fund in court doctrine. "'Fund in court' is an equitable term of art," Porreca v. City of Millville, 419 N.J. 2019"First, the court must determine as a matter of law whether plaintiff is entitled to seek an attorney fee award under the fund in court exception as articulated in Henderson." Id. at 228 . | 5 | 6 |
Sunset Beach Amusement Corp. v. Belkgreen2 sentences2019A fiduciary may make payments on account of fees for legal services rendered out of a fund entrusted to the fiduciary for administration, subject to approval and allowance or to disallowance by the court upon settlement of the account. [R. 4:42-9(a)(2).] The fund-in-court exception applies to "situations in which equitably allowances should be made and can be made consistently with the policy of the A-0363-17T2 40 rule that each litigant shall bear his [or her] own costs." Sunset Beach Amusement Co. v. Belk, 33 N.J. 162, 168 (1960). 2017The fund in court exception applies to "situations in which equitably[,] allowances should be made and can be made consistently with the policy of the rule that each litigant shall bear his own costs." Sunset Beach Amusement Co. v. Belk, 33 N.J. 162, 168 (1996). | 3 | 4 |
Henderson v. Camden County Municipal Utility Authoritygreen2 sentences2024"The fund in court exception" to the American Rule "generally applies when a party litigates a matter that produces a tangible economic benefit for a class of persons that did not contribute to the cost of the litigation." Henderson, 176 N.J. at 564 (citing Silverstein v. Shadow Lawn Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 51 N.J. 30, 45 , (1968)); see R. 4:42-9(a)(2) ("No fee for legal services shall be allowed in the taxed costs or otherwise, except . . . [o]ut of a fund in court."). 2020Auth., 176 N.J. 554, 564 (2003) ("The fund in court exception generally applies when a party litigates a matter that produces a tangible economic benefit for a class of persons that did not contribute to the cost of the litigation," but "does not apply whe n a party litigates a private dispute for its own personal gain" (citations omitted)). | 2 | 5 |
United States v. Equitable Trust Co. of NYgreen2 sentences1966See United States v. Equitable Trust Co., 283 U.S. 738 , 51 S.Ct. 639 , 75 L.Ed. 1379 (1931); State v. Otis Elevator Co., supra . *155 In Otis, Chief Justice Vanderbilt pointed out that "one does not need to find a class to support the doctrine of a fund in court." 12 N.J., at pp. 10-11. 1966See United States v. Equitable Trust Co., 283 U.S. 738 , 51 S.Ct. 639 , 75 L.Ed. 1379 (1931); State v. Otis Elevator Co., supra . *155 In Otis, Chief Justice Vanderbilt pointed out that "one does not need to find a class to support the doctrine of a fund in court." 12 N.J., at pp. 10-11. | 1 | 2 |
In the Estate of Fishergreen1 sentence2021The fund-in-court rule emanates from principles established long ago, see, e.g., In re Estate of Fisher, 115 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Bloomergreen1 sentence2021In re Bloomer, 37 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
North Bergen Rex Transport, Inc. v. Trailer Leasing Co.green1 sentence2017Prot. v. Ventron Corp., 94 N.J. 473, 504 (1983)); see also In re Estate of Lash, 169 N.J. 20, 30 (2001); N. Bergen Rex Transp., Inc. v. Trailer Leasing Co., 158 N.J. 561, 569 (1999). 6 A-4294-15T2 The fund in court exception is established by Rule 4:42- 9(a)(2), which states: Out of a fund in court. | 1 | 1 |
State, Dept. of Environ. Protect. v. Ventron Corp.green1 sentence2017Prot. v. Ventron Corp., 94 N.J. 473, 504 (1983)); see also In re Estate of Lash, 169 N.J. 20, 30 (2001); N. Bergen Rex Transp., Inc. v. Trailer Leasing Co., 158 N.J. 561, 569 (1999). 6 A-4294-15T2 The fund in court exception is established by Rule 4:42- 9(a)(2), which states: Out of a fund in court. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Lashgreen1 sentence2017Prot. v. Ventron Corp., 94 N.J. 473, 504 (1983)); see also In re Estate of Lash, 169 N.J. 20, 30 (2001); N. Bergen Rex Transp., Inc. v. Trailer Leasing Co., 158 N.J. 561, 569 (1999). 6 A-4294-15T2 The fund in court exception is established by Rule 4:42- 9(a)(2), which states: Out of a fund in court. | 1 | 1 |
Haines v. Burlington County Bridge Commissiongreen1 sentence1953Thus in Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co., supra , it disallowed counsel fee to the prevailing plaintiffs in an action to rescind an illegal purchase of property by a public body, pointing out that the proceeding was "not an action to create or preserve a fund for the benefit of a class of which the plaintiffs are representatives." Similarly, in Haines v. Burlington County Bridge Commission, 8 N.J. 539, 542 (1952), it disallowed counsel fee to the plaintiffs in a taxpayers' action, holding that "The fact that property which is the subject of litigation is under the control of the court | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Silverstein v. Shadow Lawn Savings & Loan Ass'n.
green
2 sentences2024"The fund in court exception" to the American Rule "generally applies when a party litigates a matter that produces a tangible economic benefit for a class of persons that did not contribute to the cost of the litigation." Henderson, 176 N.J. at 564 (citing Silverstein v. Shadow Lawn Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 51 N.J. 30, 45 , (1968)); see R. 4:42-9(a)(2) ("No fee for legal services shall be allowed in the taxed costs or otherwise, except . . . [o]ut of a fund in court."). 2011Silverstein, supra, 51 N.J. at 45 , 237 A. 2d 474 ; see also Henderson, supra, 176 N.J. at 565 , 826 A. 2d 615 . | 3 | 2003–2024 |
Katz v. Farber
green
2 sentences1966He cited Katz v. Farber, supra , and also the Equitable Trust case where the Supreme Court permitted the charging of counsel fees to the fund, in a proceeding brought on behalf of an incompetent Indian for recovery of his property which had been dissipated with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. 1953In Katz v. Farber, 4 N.J. 333 (1950), Justice Case dealt with the subject at length but none of his illustrative instances bears on escheat proceedings. | 2 | 1953–1966 |
In Re Trust Agreement Dec. 20, 1961
green
1 sentence2025The judge also cited In re Trust Dec. 20, 1961, 399 N.J. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Richard Grabowsky v. Twp. of Montclair (073142)
green
1 sentence2017Because the underlying facts are set forth in the Supreme Court's decision, Grabowsky v. Twp. of Montclair, 221 N.J. 536 (2013), we need not repeat them at length here. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Leeds and Lippincott Co. v. Nevius
neutral
2 sentences2003Silverstein, supra, 51 N.J. at 45 , 237 A.2d 474 ; Sarner, supra, 38 N.J. at 468-69 , 185 A.2d 851 ; Leeds & Lippincott Co. v. Nevius, 30 N.J. 281, 288 , 153 A.2d 45 (1959). 2003Silverstein, supra, 51 N.J. at 45 , 237 A.2d 474 ; Sarner, supra, 38 N.J. at 468-69 , 185 A.2d 851 ; Leeds & Lippincott Co. v. Nevius, 30 N.J. 281, 288 , 153 A.2d 45 (1959). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sarner v. Sarner
green
2 sentences2003Silverstein, supra, 51 N.J. at 45 , 237 A.2d 474 ; Sarner, supra, 38 N.J. at 468-69 , 185 A.2d 851 ; Leeds & Lippincott Co. v. Nevius, 30 N.J. 281, 288 , 153 A.2d 45 (1959). 2003Silverstein, supra, 51 N.J. at 45 , 237 A.2d 474 ; Sarner, supra, 38 N.J. at 468-69 , 185 A.2d 851 ; Leeds & Lippincott Co. v. Nevius, 30 N.J. 281, 288 , 153 A.2d 45 (1959). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Otis Elevator Co.
green
1 sentence1958However, in State v. Otis Elevator Co ., above, 12 N.J., at page 10 , the Supreme Court flatly stated that "one does not need to find a class to support the doctrine of a fund in court." At any rate, the theory has no application here. | 1 | 1958–1958 |