<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Litwin &amp; Provence, LLC</title>
	<atom:link href="https://litprolaw.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://litprolaw.com</link>
	<description>Counsellors at Law - Basking Ridge, NJ</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2021 19:15:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Philips V. Borough of Keyport</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/philips-v-borough-of-keyport/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 23:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Land Use]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=738</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Argued as the sole term-opening argument before the 13-member court and all 39 law clerks. the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that remand was necessary to determine whether the Plaintiffs/Appellants, who wished to open an adult bookstore. were entitled to injunctive relief or damages on claims that they were deprived of substantial due ]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[		<div data-elementor-type="wp-post" data-elementor-id="738" class="elementor elementor-738" data-elementor-settings="[]">
							<div class="elementor-section-wrap">
							<section class="elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-c2cfae0 elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default" data-id="c2cfae0" data-element_type="section">
						<div class="elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default">
					<div class="elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-6f33252" data-id="6f33252" data-element_type="column">
			<div class="elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated">
								<div class="elementor-element elementor-element-bee4362 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor" data-id="bee4362" data-element_type="widget" data-widget_type="text-editor.default">
				<div class="elementor-widget-container">
							<p>Argued as the sole term-opening argument before the 13-member court and all 39 law clerks. the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that remand was necessary to determine whether the Plaintiffs/Appellants, who wished to open an adult bookstore. were entitled to injunctive relief or damages on claims that they were deprived of substantial due process and subjected to First Amendment violations.</p><p>Argued and briefed by Gordon N. Litwin on behalf of Defendant/Appellee Borough of Keyport.</p><p>Read the opinion here.</p>						</div>
				</div>
					</div>
		</div>
							</div>
		</section>
						</div>
					</div>
		]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hovsons, Inc. &#038; Homeland Corp. V. Department of Environmental Protection, Land Use Regulatory Program</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/hovsons-inc-homeland-corp-v-department-of-environmental-protection-land-use-regulatory-program/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 19:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Real Estate & Land Use]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=793</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Docket No. A-3220-99T2 (App. Dlv. 2001) (Unpublished). The Appellate Division affirmed the DEP&#8217;s determination that Appellant&#8217;s CAFRA application could not be reviewed unless and until its site was included in a sewer service area designated by a county Water Quality Management Plan. Argued by Andrew J. Provence; briefed by Gordon N. Litwin and Andrew J. ]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Docket No. A-3220-99T2 (App. Dlv. 2001) (Unpublished).</p>



<p>The Appellate Division affirmed the DEP&#8217;s determination that Appellant&#8217;s CAFRA application could not be reviewed unless and until its site was included in a sewer service area designated by a county Water Quality Management Plan.</p>



<p>Argued by Andrew J. Provence; briefed by Gordon N. Litwin and Andrew J. Provence on behalf of amicus curiae American Littoral Society, Inc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hartz Mountain Industries V. NJ Department of Environmental Protection</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/hartz-mountain-industries-v-nj-department-of-environmental-protection/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 17:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental & Administrative]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=872</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Following a 64-day hearing. the Administrative Court affirmed the denial of a waterfront development permitfor two high-rise buildings and related structures along the Hudson River, which would have blocked views ofdowntown Manhattan from the approach ramp to the Lincoln Tunnel, in contravention of applicable coastalzone management regulations. Argued and briefed by Gordan N. Litwin for ]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Following a 64-day hearing. the Administrative Court affirmed the denial of a waterfront development permit<br>for two high-rise buildings and related structures along the Hudson River, which would have blocked views of<br>downtown Manhattan from the approach ramp to the Lincoln Tunnel, in contravention of applicable coastal<br>zone management regulations.<br></p>



<p>Argued and briefed by Gordan N. Litwin for Participant/Objector American Littoral Society, Inc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Southern Jersey Watermen&#8217;s Association V. NJ Department of Environmental Protection</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/southern-jersey-watermens-association-v-nj-department-of-environmental-protection/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 17:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental & Administrative]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=870</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Successfully argued to the Appellate Division that the appeal of NJDEP&#8217;s temporary moratorium on horseshoecrab harvesting in Delaware Bay was made moot by new legislation establishing a moratorium on suchharvests enacted to protect declining populations of horseshoe crab and the red knot shorebird. Briefed by Gordon N. Litwin and Andrew J. Provence on behalf of ]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Successfully argued to the Appellate Division that the appeal of NJDEP&#8217;s temporary moratorium on horseshoe<br>crab harvesting in Delaware Bay was made moot by new legislation establishing a moratorium on such<br>harvests enacted to protect declining populations of horseshoe crab and the red knot shorebird.<br></p>



<p>Briefed by Gordon N. Litwin and Andrew J. Provence on behalf of Intervenor-Respondents American Littoral<br>Society, Delaware Baykeeper and Maya Van Rossum.<br></p>



<p>Read the opinion here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Re Waterfront Development Permit No. WD88-0443-1</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/in-re-waterfront-development-permit-no-wd88-0443-1/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 17:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental & Administrative]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=868</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The NJDEP Commissioner&#8217;s issuance of a permit for development of waterfront property that would obscure panoramic view of New York City skyline from Lincoln Tunnel helix was reversed by the Appellate Division because agency rules required that such permits be issued by the Division of Coastal Resources, and DEP was bound to follow its own ]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>The NJDEP Commissioner&#8217;s issuance of a permit for development of waterfront property that would obscure panoramic view of New York City skyline from Lincoln Tunnel helix was reversed by the Appellate Division because agency rules required that such permits be issued by the Division of Coastal Resources, and DEP was bound to follow its own rules.</p>



<p>Argued and briefed by Gordon N. Litwin on behalf of Appellant American Littoral Society, Inc.</p>



<p>Read the opinion here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>East Cape May Associates V. State of NJ, Department of Environmental Protection</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/east-cape-may-associates-v-state-of-nj-department-of-environmental-protection/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 17:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental & Administrative]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=866</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Successfully argued to the Appellate Division that (1) under the Public Trust Doctrine, riparian lands granted to private owners by the State remain subject to State regulation, (2) DEP lacked the authority to waive substantive requirements of its environmental regulations without regulations to guide its discretionary powers, and (3) there was no temporary taking of ]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Successfully argued to the Appellate Division that (1) under the Public Trust Doctrine, riparian lands granted to private owners by the State remain subject to State regulation, (2) DEP lacked the authority to waive substantive requirements of its environmental regulations without regulations to guide its discretionary powers, and (3) there was no temporary taking of Plaintiff&#8217;s property, notwithstanding a seven-year gap between DEP&#8217;s permit denial and its issuance of a 22(b) settlement offer.</p>



<p>Argued by Gordon N. Litwin; briefed by Gordon N. Litwin and Andrew J. Provence on behalf of American Littoral Society, Inc.</p>



<p>Read the opinion here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>SMB Associates V. NJ Department of Environmental Protection</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/smb-associates-v-nj-department-of-environmental-protection/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 17:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental & Administrative]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=864</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In its oft-cited opinion, the Supreme Court held that a state board&#8217;s grant of a waiver to a developer. Shieldingits development project from certain Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) rules. was improper becauseboard members were authorized to use their judgment in applying the law to cases. not to revise CAFRA. Argued and briefed by ]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>In its oft-cited opinion, the Supreme Court held that a state board&#8217;s grant of a waiver to a developer. Shielding<br>its development project from certain Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) rules. was improper because<br>board members were authorized to use their judgment in applying the law to cases. not to revise CAFRA.<br></p>



<p>Argued and briefed by Gordon N. Litwin on behalf of Respondents American Littoral Society, Inc., D.W.<br>Bennett and Richard Crema.<br></p>



<p>Read the opinion here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Raleigh Avenue Beach Association V. Atlantis Beach Club, Inc.</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/raleigh-avenue-beach-association-v-atlantis-beach-club-inc/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 17:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental & Administrative]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=862</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In this landmark case. we successfully argued that. under the Public Trust Doctrine, the public has a right toaccess and use a privately-owned beach operated as a private beach club Argued by Andrew J Provence; briefed by Gordon N. Litwin and Andrew J. Provence on behalf of amicus curiae American Littoral Society. Inc Read the ]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>In this landmark case. we successfully argued that. under the Public Trust Doctrine, the public has a right to<br>access and use a privately-owned beach operated as a private beach club<br></p>



<p>Argued by Andrew J Provence; briefed by Gordon N. Litwin and Andrew J. Provence on behalf of amicus curiae American Littoral Society. Inc<br></p>



<p>Read the opinion here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>City of Long Branch V. Liu</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/city-of-long-branch-v-liu/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 16:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental & Administrative]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=860</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Successfully advocated to the New Jersey Supreme Court that beach area added to the shoreline as a result ofa publicly-funded beach replenishment program was public, not private, property. Briefed (at the request of the supreme Court) by Gordon N. Litwin and Andrew J. Provence on behalf ofamicus curiae American Littoral Society, Inc. Read the opinion ]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>Successfully advocated to the New Jersey Supreme Court that beach area added to the shoreline as a result of<br>a publicly-funded beach replenishment program was public, not private, property.<br></p>



<p>Briefed (at the request of the supreme Court) by Gordon N. Litwin and Andrew J. Provence on behalf of<br>amicus curiae American Littoral Society, Inc.<br></p>



<p>Read the opinion here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clean Ocean Action, Inc. V. York</title>
		<link>https://litprolaw.com/clean-ocean-action-inc-v-york/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Provence]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2013 16:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Environmental & Administrative]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://litprolaw.com/?p=858</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reviewing an environmental challenge to an ocean dumping permit, Third Circuit ruled that court belowcommitted a serious error of law because EPA did not perform the required testing according to its ownregulations. Argued and briefed by Gordon N. Litwin on behalf of Plaintiff Clean Ocean Action, Inc Read the opinion here.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>In reviewing an environmental challenge to an ocean dumping permit, Third Circuit ruled that court below<br>committed a serious error of law because EPA did not perform the required testing according to its own<br>regulations.<br></p>



<p>Argued and briefed by Gordon N. Litwin on behalf of Plaintiff Clean Ocean Action, Inc<br></p>



<p>Read the opinion here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 

Served from: litprolaw.com @ 2026-04-16 15:14:17 by W3 Total Cache
-->