Case law

Curtiss Wright Corp. v. Wood-Ridge Borough

4 N.J. Tax 68 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 27, 1982

In Edge-water v. U. S. … In Rothman v.

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. City of Orange

2 N.J. Tax 25 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 20, 1980

See Poll v. City of Plainfield, 25 N.J.Misc. 325, 53 A.2d 366 (Div.Tax.App.1947); City of Newark v. Fischer, 3 N.J. 488 , 70 A.2d 733 (1950); Suburban Dept. Stores v. … Co. v. Newark, 10 N.J. 99, 103 , 89 A.2d 385 (1952); Hackensack Water Co. v. Div. of Tax Appeals, 2 N.J. 157, 162 , 65 A.2d 828 (1949). See also, Salem v. Salem Cty.

United States Postal Service v. Town of Kearny

10 N.J. Tax 217 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 5, 1988

Inwood at Great Notch v. Little Falls Tp., 6 N.J.Tax *223 316 (Tax Ct.1984); Wild v. Roman, 91 N.J.Super. 410 , 220 A.2d 711 (App.Div.1966). … It contends that defendant was without authority to settle the assessment for a subsequent year, citing Jackson Tp. v. Marsyll of B.B.

City of Union v. Capitol-Theatre Amusement Co.

26 N.J. Misc. 102 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 27, 1948

Venner v. Great Northern Railway, 209 U. S. 24 ; 28 S. Ct. 328 ; 52 L. Ed. 666 ; Danoff v. Larsen, 368 Ill. 519 ; 15 N. E. Rep. (2d) 290; HeTbush v. HeTbush, 209 Cal. 758 ; 290 Pac. … Ettrick v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 12 N. J. Mis. R. 432; 172 Atl. Rep. 365 . Newark v. Calco Chemical Co., N. J. Tax Reports (1934-1939), 593.

Corrado v. City of Hoboken

20 N.J. Misc. 134 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 31, 1942

(a) The first point is disposed of by the ruling of the board, opinion by the late president of the board, Mr. Weaver, in Public Service Railway Co. v. … Our courts have observed that taxation is an intense realty, Universal Insurance Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals (Supreme Court, 1937), 118 N. J. L. 538, 541; 193 Atl. Rep. 915 ; Herdman Motor Co. v.

City of Atlantic City v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc.

16 N.J. Tax 486 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 16, 1997

Co. v. … [Lally v.

American Hydro Power Partners v. City of Clifton

11 N.J. Tax 12 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 14, 1990

Real Property v. Personal Property. … Dworman v. Tinton Falls Boro., supra.

Family Realty Co. v. Secaucus Town

16 N.J. Tax 185 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 7, 1996

In Brick Tp. v. … Brick Tp. v.

Borough of Rumson v. Haran

3 N.J. Tax 590 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 4, 1981

The Legislature did not use “assessed valuation” for hearings before the county board of taxation and “judgment of the county board of taxation” for hearings before the Tax Court. In Piscataway Assoc., Inc. v. … At no place in the opiniott is there any reference to the judgment of the county board of taxation. *596 In Feder v.

VSH Realty, Inc. v. Harding Township

14 N.J. Tax 379 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 1, 1994

Taxpayers suggest that it may merely state that it is contesting the assessment and the obligation is then on the county tax board to determine whether or not the assessment is correct. Taxpayers rely on Pope v. … The reasoning of the Board of Tax Appeals in Pope v. Bed Bank is not applicable because of the passage of time and changes in the economy and rules of procedure.

O'Rourke v. Township of Fredon

25 N.J. Tax 443 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 9, 2010

In Hopatcong Fuel On You, LLC v. … Vicari v. Bethlehem, Township, 8 N.J.Tax 513, 518 (Tax 1986).

Borough of Edgewater v. United States Life Realty Corp.

2 N.J. Tax 421 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 23, 1981

See Union Terminal Cold Storage Co. v. Spence, 17 N.J. 162 , 110 A.2d 110 (1964). … The classic statement of the obvious legislative purpose is found in Newark v.

American Hydro Power Partners, L.P. v. City of Clifton

9 N.J. Tax 259 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 13, 1987

Defendant cites Jackson Tp. v. Marsyll of B.B. Inc., 3 N.J.Tax 386 (Tax Ct.1981) and Hi-Nella Assocs. v. Hi-Nella, 3 N.J.Tax 414 (Tax Ct.1981) in support of its position. Defendant’s argument is unsound. … See Springfield Tp. v. Garner, 3 N.J.Tax 92 (1981); Boardwalk Properties v. Atlantic City, 5 N.J.Tax 192 (1983).

City of South Amboy v. Karpowicz

28 N.J. Tax 324 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 25, 2015

In Glen Pointe Associates v. … City of Hackensack v.

City of Jersey v. Bettcher

22 N.J. Misc. 16 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 15, 1943

Kenilworth v. Board of Equalization, 78 N. J. L. 302; 72 Atl. Rep. 966 ; affirmed (Court of Errors and Appeals), 78 N. J. L. 439; 74 Atl. Rep. 480 ; Hoboken v. Lamport & Holt Line, N. J. … In Royal Manufacturing Co. v. Board of Equalization of Taxes (Supreme Court), 76 N. J. L. 402; 70 Atl. Rep. 978 , Mr.

In re the Appeals Filed by the City of Jersey City

23 N.J. Misc. 311 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 4, 1945

Park Ridge v. Board of Equalization of Taxes, 86 N. J. L. 39; 90 Atl. Rep. 1019 . … Kenilworth v. Board of Equalization of Taxes, 78 N. J. L.. 302; 72 Atl. Rep. 966 .

Township of Washington v. Warren County Tax Administrator

19 N.J. Tax 1 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 23, 2000

That a county board may use any “reasonable and efficient mode” of equalization was established in City of Passaic v. Passaic County Board of Taxation, 18 N.J. 371 , 113 A.2d 753 (1955). In Carteret Borough v. … In Woodbridge Township v.

Borough of Paramus v. County of Bergen

1 N.J. Tax 126 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 12, 1980

See Township of Delaware v. Assessors of Taxes, 53 N.J.L. 319 , 21 A. 938 (Sup.Ct.1891); Kenilworth v. Board of Equal, of Taxes, 78 N.J.L. 439 , 74 A. 480 (E. & A. 1909); Montclair v. … In Montclair v. State Board of Tax Appeals, supra, the Court stated: “. . .

Stewart v. Hamilton Township

7 N.J. Tax 368 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 21, 1984

State Board of Tax Appeals, 123 N.J.L. 350, 353 , 8 A.2d 819 (Sup.Ct.1939); and, the courts cannot arbitrarily expand their *373 scope, Galloway Tp. v. … Blackhawk Mining Co., Inc. v. Andrus, 711 F.2d 753 (9th Cir.1983); Rosewell v. LaSalle National Bank, 450 US. 503 [ 101 S.Ct. 1221 , 67 L.Ed.2d 464 ] (1981); District of Columbia v.

Shav Associates v. Township of Middletown

11 N.J. Tax 569 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 13, 1991

The second issue deals with the correct value to be used when considering discrimination relief in the Tax Court, either the original assessment or the county board judgment. See Rumson v. … To the same effect is Ft Lee v.