Outpost Development Corp. v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• noting that burden of proof may be deemed procedural for some purposes and not for others
• stating that a court “may deliberately decide issues which need not be decided when it believes that course is warranted”
• permitting a court to “decide issues which need not be decided when it believes that course is warranted”
• permitting a court to decide issues not requiring decision when the court “believes that course is warranted”
• allowing prejudgment interest for future damages and observing that for both past and future damages "the defendant has had the use, and the plaintiff has not, of moneys which the judgment finds was the damage plaintiff suffered”
• involving the validity of Rule 4:42-11(b), which authorizes] prejudgment interest in tort actions
• no review of forced retirement of officers after specified number of years of military service
• the Court-propounded rule concerning prejudgment interest in tort cases, was held properly within the scope of its rule-making power