magnitude error (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

magnitude error in New Jersey

28 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 15 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Palombi v. Palombigreen
njsuperctappdiv · 2010 · cited in 26 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2018–2026
2 sentences

2026"The magnitude of the error cited must be a game-changer for reconsideration to be appropriate." Id. at 466-67 (quoting Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 289 (App. Div. 2010)).

2026"The magnitude of the error cited must be a game-changer for reconsideration to be appropriate." Id. at 466-67 (quoting Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 289 (App. Div. 2010)).

2526
Sabella v. Lacey Tp.green
njsuperctappdiv · 1985 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
2 sentences

1992Such mistakes go essentially to valuation and are remediable by appeal to the county board, [at 110, 259 A.2d 708 ] Although the Appellate Division in Sabella did not explicitly hold that the size of the consequence of the error influenced its judgment, its opinion is full of references indicating that the magnitude of the error was clearly on the judges’ minds: “[i]f a taxpayer is assessed over four times that which everyone connected with taxation in the municipality concedes he should be,” 204 N.J.Super, at 57, 497 A.2d 896 , emphasis supplied; the facts “show so clearly an egregious result

1992Such mistakes go essentially to valuation and are remediable by appeal to the county board, [at 110, 259 A.2d 708 ] Although the Appellate Division in Sabella did not explicitly hold that the size of the consequence of the error influenced its judgment, its opinion is full of references indicating that the magnitude of the error was clearly on the judges’ minds: “[i]f a taxpayer is assessed over four times that which everyone connected with taxation in the municipality concedes he should be,” 204 N.J.Super, at 57, 497 A.2d 896 , emphasis supplied; the facts “show so clearly an egregious result

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Cummings v. Bahr green
njsuperctappdiv · 1996
2 sentences

2026"The magnitude of the error cited must be a game-changer for reconsideration to be appropriate." Id. at 466-67 (quoting Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 289 (App. Div. 2010)).

2026"The magnitude of the error cited must be a game-changer for reconsideration to be appropriate." Id. at 466-67 (quoting Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274, 289 (App. Div. 2010)).

32025–2026
D'Atria v. D'Atria green
njsuperctappdiv · 1990
2 sentences

2020Super. 274, 289 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting D'Atria, 242 N.J.

2010"Said another way, a litigant must initially demonstrate that the Court acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner, before the Court should engage in the actual reconsideration process." D' Atria, supra, 242 N.J.Super. at 401 , 576 A. 2d 957 (emphasis added).

22010–2020
Farmingdale Realty Co. v. Borough of Farmingdale green
nj · 1969
1 sentence

1992Such mistakes go essentially to valuation and are remediable by appeal to the county board, [at 110, 259 A.2d 708 ] Although the Appellate Division in Sabella did not explicitly hold that the size of the consequence of the error influenced its judgment, its opinion is full of references indicating that the magnitude of the error was clearly on the judges’ minds: “[i]f a taxpayer is assessed over four times that which everyone connected with taxation in the municipality concedes he should be,” 204 N.J.Super, at 57, 497 A.2d 896 , emphasis supplied; the facts “show so clearly an egregious result

11992–1992

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NJ § N.J. Stat. § 10:5-1 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 31 (1973–2026) TX 28 (1995–2026) NJ 28 (1992–2026) TN 23 (2007–2026) LA 14 (1978–2026) CA 8 (2017–2024) MI 7 (1978–2023) GA 5 (1976–2019) OH 4 (1969–2002) OR 3 (1994–2021) MA 3 (1990–2025) KS 3 (2001–2008) NY 3 (1985–2026) WA 3 (1953–2020) ND 2 (2024–2024) MO 2 (1986–1987)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check