Go Back to Browsing Options
| Argument ID | 8222 |
| Title | New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium v. New jersey Department of Corrections |
| Date | 2005-02-28 14:00:00 |
| Description | Do the fee enhancement principles adopted in Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (1995), apply to a case in which a pro bono attorney, acting without benefit of a written contingent fee agreement and without expectation of a fee from his client, successfully litigates a public interest matter under a statute containing a fee-shifting provision? |
| Appeal | http://165.230.71.5/supct/opinions/corrections.pdf |
| Opinion | http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/supreme/a-63-04.opn.html |
| Doc ID | A-63-04 |
| Metadata | Dublin Core |
| Video Feed |
| Counsel | Type |
|---|---|
| Lewis A. Scheindlin | Appellant |
| Kevin D. Walsh | Respondent |