Trump's name appears 61 times in the judge's decision. From paragraph 2:
These three cases involve a challenge to Casino Reinvestment Development Authority's (CRDA's) attempt to exercise its power of eminent domain. CRDA and Trump seek a judgment determining that CRDA is duly vested with the power of eminent domain and has appropriately exercised the power. . . .
I don’t see the “strong armed part”. The vast majority of of the references to Trump in the case are related to the exhibits of the agreement/proposal between Trump and CDRA for Trump to build a casino and how Trump was bound if CDRA acquired the specific property in question and transferred it to him.
In the judge’s opinion the binding was not sufficiently specific and that was the reason the case was decided against CDRA.