The Supreme Court has granted review in four more cases.  In Cherokee LCP Land, LLC v. City of Linden Planning Bd., the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Do plaintiffs have a sufficient interest in the property adjacent to the property to be developed (the development property), such that they have standing to challenge the municipal planning board’s site plan approval for the development property?”

An award of attorneys’ fees is at the heart of Noren v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.   The quest

The Supreme Court has granted review in five cases.  One of them is an appeal as of right, by virtue of a dissent in the Appellate Division.  That case is State v. Twiggs.  The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “When addressing the statute of limitations in a criminal matter, is N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6’s tolling provision- which applies when ‘the actor’ is identified by means of DNA evidence- triggered where the DNA analyzed belongs to a third party, rather than the defendant?”  The Appellate Division’

Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. Franklin Tp. Bd. of Adj., 448 N.J. Super. 583 (App. Div. 2017).  The Municipal Land Use Law (“MLUL”), in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.5, contains a “time of application rule” that determines what ordinance governs a land use development application.  Under that provision, regulations that are in effect “on the date of submission of an application for development” will apply.  But what qualifies a submission to a pla