7 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mani v. Manigreen2 sentences2019Rule 5:3-5(c) permits an award of fees upon consideration of the following nine factors: (1) the financial circumstances of the parties; (2) the ability of the parties to pay their own fees or to A-4687-16T3 21 contribute to the fees of the other party; (3) the reasonableness and good faith of the positions advanced by the parties both during and prior to trial; (4) the extent of the fees incurred by both parties; (5) any fees previously awarded; (6) the amount of fees previously paid to counsel by each party; (7) the results obtained; (8) the degree to which fees were incurred to enforce exis 2019An award of counsel fees in a Family Part action is a discretionary determination, Williams, 59 N.J. at 233 , reached after consideration of the following nine factors: (1) the financial circumstances of the parties; (2) the ability of the parties to pay their own fees or to contribute to the fees of the other party; (3) the reasonableness and good faith of the positions advanced by the parties both during and prior to trial; (4) the extent of the fees incurred by both parties; (5) any fees previously awarded; (6) the amount of fees previously paid to counsel by each party; (7) the results obt | 3 | 4 |
Williams v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2019An award of counsel fees in a Family Part action is a discretionary determination, Williams, 59 N.J. at 233 , reached after consideration of the following nine factors: (1) the financial circumstances of the parties; (2) the ability of the parties to pay their own fees or to contribute to the fees of the other party; (3) the reasonableness and good faith of the positions advanced by the parties both during and prior to trial; (4) the extent of the fees incurred by both parties; (5) any fees previously awarded; (6) the amount of fees previously paid to counsel by each party; (7) the results obt 2017In determining whether a party is entitled to counsel fees under Rule 5:3-5(c), the Family Part must consider the following nine factors: 20 A-0268-15T1 (1) the financial circumstances of the parties; (2) the ability of the parties to pay their own fees or to contribute to the fees of the other party; (3) the reasonableness and good faith of the positions advanced by the parties both during and prior to trial; (4) the extent of the fees incurred by both parties; (5) any fees previously awarded; (6) the amount of fees previously paid to counsel by each party; (7) the results obtained; (8) the d | 2 | 3 |
Reese v. Weisgreen2 sentences2019However, not every factor must be considered, Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. 2017In determining whether a party is entitled to counsel fees under Rule 5:3-5(c), the Family Part must consider the following nine factors: 20 A-0268-15T1 (1) the financial circumstances of the parties; (2) the ability of the parties to pay their own fees or to contribute to the fees of the other party; (3) the reasonableness and good faith of the positions advanced by the parties both during and prior to trial; (4) the extent of the fees incurred by both parties; (5) any fees previously awarded; (6) the amount of fees previously paid to counsel by each party; (7) the results obtained; (8) the d | 2 | 2 |
Jev v. Kvgreen1 sentence2024In Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70, 94-95 (2005), the Supreme Court summarized the attorney fee inquiry as follows: In a nutshell, in awarding counsel fees, the court must consider whether the party requesting the fees is in financial need; whether the party against whom the fees are sought has the ability to pay; the good or bad faith of either party in pursuing or defending the action; the nature and extent of the services rendered; and the reasonableness of the fees. [Ibid. (citing Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229, 233 (1971)).] A-3143-20 28 "In fashioning an attorney fee award, the judge must d | 1 | 1 |
NANCY G. SLUTSKY VS. KENNETH J. SLUTSKY (FM-14-1535-08, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)green2 sentences2020Defendant argues the judge "focused on two of the nine factors enumerated in Rule 5:3-5(c)," and "ignor[ed] the fact that [p]laintiff filed the initial unnecessary application, has a far greater ability to fund the litigation," and "brought [the application] in bad faith." Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, when a party makes "an application for . . . counsel fees, the court shall determine the appropriate award for counsel fees, if any, . . . consider[ing] the factors set forth in [Rule 5:3-5], the financial circumstances of the parties, and the good or bad faith of either party." N.J.S.A. 2A:34- 2020Super. 332, 366 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting R. 5:3-5(c)).] "The assessment of counsel fees is discretionary" and we "will disturb a trial court's determination on counsel fees only on the 'rarest occasion,' and then only because of clear abuse of discretion." Id. at 365 (quoting Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Strahan v. Strahangreen1 sentence2020Super. 332, 366 (App. Div. 2018) (quoting R. 5:3-5(c)).] "The assessment of counsel fees is discretionary" and we "will disturb a trial court's determination on counsel fees only on the 'rarest occasion,' and then only because of clear abuse of discretion." Id. at 365 (quoting Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Metromedia, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxationgreen1 sentence2019There is insufficient evidence in the two administrators' written decision that they considered any of the nine factors other than the "[f]ield account of the present offense," N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(a)(1).4 "Field account" is not defined, but in connection with that factor, the administrators focused on the circumstances 3 They also said that the decision must be based on "internal management procedures as well as any potential safety and security risks." We question whether reliance on non-promulgated internal procedures would run afoul of the recent order in Smith, slip op. at 11-12, as well as | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Randazzo v. Randazzo
green
1 sentence2019Ibid. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jenkins v. Fauver
green
1 sentence2019There is insufficient evidence in the two administrators' written decision that they considered any of the nine factors other than the "[f]ield account of the present offense," N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(a)(1).4 "Field account" is not defined, but in connection with that factor, the administrators focused on the circumstances 3 They also said that the decision must be based on "internal management procedures as well as any potential safety and security risks." We question whether reliance on non-promulgated internal procedures would run afoul of the recent order in Smith, slip op. at 11-12, as well as | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.