Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1951–2013 0 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lockwood v. Walshgreen2 sentences2013Rather, given the administrative histoiy of [Taxation’s] earlier determination (communicated to the taxpayer) that the taxpayer was not entitled to a refund because of the statute of limitations, the recovery of the funds here is more akin to the correction of a clerical error that led to the mailing of a tax refund check to which the taxpayer was not entitled, rather than the correction of an error in judgment. [Playmates Toys, supra, 162 N.J. at 187 , 742 A.2d 968 ] The Court relied upon Lockwood v. Walsh, 137 N.J. 2013Eq. 445, 450 , 45 A.2d 305 (Prerog.Ct.1946) for its conclusion. | 2 | 3 |
Manczak v. Township of Dovergreen2 sentences1994Village, supra, 8 N.J.Tax at 304 (declaring that N.J.S.A 54:51A-7 potentially “does violence to the concept of finality of assessments necessary for the predictability of revenues and the orderly financing of government”); Flint, supra, 6 N.J.Tax at 108 (“[T]he extraordinary remedy of [the Correction of Errors Statute] might quickly become a standard method of review for any taxpayer who could find a factual error on his property record card even several years after his normal appeal time has expired.”); Springfield, supra, 3 N.J.Tax at 95 (“To permit plaintiff to rectify its omission by means 1994Village, supra, 8 N.J.Tax at 304 (declaring that N.J.S.A 54:51A-7 potentially “does violence to the concept of finality of assessments necessary for the predictability of revenues and the orderly financing of government”); Flint, supra, 6 N.J.Tax at 108 (“[T]he extraordinary remedy of [the Correction of Errors Statute] might quickly become a standard method of review for any taxpayer who could find a factual error on his property record card even several years after his normal appeal time has expired.”); Springfield, supra, 3 N.J.Tax at 95 (“To permit plaintiff to rectify its omission by means | 1 | 3 |
Playmates Toys Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxationgreen2 sentences2013Rather, given the administrative histoiy of [Taxation’s] earlier determination (communicated to the taxpayer) that the taxpayer was not entitled to a refund because of the statute of limitations, the recovery of the funds here is more akin to the correction of a clerical error that led to the mailing of a tax refund check to which the taxpayer was not entitled, rather than the correction of an error in judgment. [Playmates Toys, supra, 162 N.J. at 187 , 742 A.2d 968 ] The Court relied upon Lockwood v. Walsh, 137 N.J. 2013Rather, given the administrative histoiy of [Taxation’s] earlier determination (communicated to the taxpayer) that the taxpayer was not entitled to a refund because of the statute of limitations, the recovery of the funds here is more akin to the correction of a clerical error that led to the mailing of a tax refund check to which the taxpayer was not entitled, rather than the correction of an error in judgment. [Playmates Toys, supra, 162 N.J. at 187 , 742 A.2d 968 ] The Court relied upon Lockwood v. Walsh, 137 N.J. | 1 | 2 |
L.S. Village, Inc. v. Lawrence Townshipgreen1 sentence1994Village, supra, 8 N.J.Tax at 304 (declaring that N.J.S.A 54:51A-7 potentially “does violence to the concept of finality of assessments necessary for the predictability of revenues and the orderly financing of government”); Flint, supra, 6 N.J.Tax at 108 (“[T]he extraordinary remedy of [the Correction of Errors Statute] might quickly become a standard method of review for any taxpayer who could find a factual error on his property record card even several years after his normal appeal time has expired.”); Springfield, supra, 3 N.J.Tax at 95 (“To permit plaintiff to rectify its omission by means | 1 | 1 |
Township of Springfield v. Garnergreen2 sentences1994Village, supra, 8 N.J.Tax at 304 (declaring that N.J.S.A 54:51A-7 potentially “does violence to the concept of finality of assessments necessary for the predictability of revenues and the orderly financing of government”); Flint, supra, 6 N.J.Tax at 108 (“[T]he extraordinary remedy of [the Correction of Errors Statute] might quickly become a standard method of review for any taxpayer who could find a factual error on his property record card even several years after his normal appeal time has expired.”); Springfield, supra, 3 N.J.Tax at 95 (“To permit plaintiff to rectify its omission by means 1994Village, supra, 8 N.J.Tax at 304 (declaring that N.J.S.A 54:51A-7 potentially “does violence to the concept of finality of assessments necessary for the predictability of revenues and the orderly financing of government”); Flint, supra, 6 N.J.Tax at 108 (“[T]he extraordinary remedy of [the Correction of Errors Statute] might quickly become a standard method of review for any taxpayer who could find a factual error on his property record card even several years after his normal appeal time has expired.”); Springfield, supra, 3 N.J.Tax at 95 (“To permit plaintiff to rectify its omission by means | 1 | 1 |
Flint v. Lawrence Townshipgreen2 sentences1994Village, supra, 8 N.J.Tax at 304 (declaring that N.J.S.A 54:51A-7 potentially “does violence to the concept of finality of assessments necessary for the predictability of revenues and the orderly financing of government”); Flint, supra, 6 N.J.Tax at 108 (“[T]he extraordinary remedy of [the Correction of Errors Statute] might quickly become a standard method of review for any taxpayer who could find a factual error on his property record card even several years after his normal appeal time has expired.”); Springfield, supra, 3 N.J.Tax at 95 (“To permit plaintiff to rectify its omission by means 1994Village, supra, 8 N.J.Tax at 304 (declaring that N.J.S.A 54:51A-7 potentially “does violence to the concept of finality of assessments necessary for the predictability of revenues and the orderly financing of government”); Flint, supra, 6 N.J.Tax at 108 (“[T]he extraordinary remedy of [the Correction of Errors Statute] might quickly become a standard method of review for any taxpayer who could find a factual error on his property record card even several years after his normal appeal time has expired.”); Springfield, supra, 3 N.J.Tax at 95 (“To permit plaintiff to rectify its omission by means | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Browngreen1 sentence1988Cf. Brown v. Brown, 208 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McElwee v. Ocean City
green
2 sentences2004The court held that because the “alleged mistake involves an assessor’s opinion[,] this court is expressly prohibited from considering this complaint under this correction of error [sic] statute.” Id. at 363 . 1994The court held that because the “alleged mistake involves an assessor’s opinion!,] this court is expressly prohibited from considering this complaint under this correction of error statute.” Id. at 363 . | 3 | 1985–2004 |
Sabella v. Lacey Tp.
neutral
2 sentences1985In support of their position, plaintiffs rely upon the Appellate Division opinion in Sabella v. Lacey Tp., 188 N.J.Super. 500 , 457 A. 2d 1220 (App.Div.1983) wherein it stated: “It is likely that this particular statute, being remedial and prophylactic, should be liberally construed____” Id. at 503 , 457 A. 2d 1220 . 1985In support of their position, plaintiffs rely upon the Appellate Division opinion in Sabella v. Lacey Tp., 188 N.J.Super. 500 , 457 A. 2d 1220 (App.Div.1983) wherein it stated: “It is likely that this particular statute, being remedial and prophylactic, should be liberally construed____” Id. at 503 , 457 A. 2d 1220 . | 2 | 1983–1985 |
Hovbilt, Inc. v. Township of Howell
green
2 sentences1996Plaintiffs contention regarding the correction of error statute, N.J.S.A 54:51A-7, is controlled by Hovbilt, Inc. v. Township of Howell, 138 N.J. 598 , 651 A.2d 77 (1994). 1996Plaintiffs contention regarding the correction of error statute, N.J.S.A 54:51A-7, is controlled by Hovbilt, Inc. v. Township of Howell, 138 N.J. 598 , 651 A.2d 77 (1994). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Kirk
green
1 sentence1990Cf. State v. Kirk, 243 N.J. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Marzolf
green
1 sentence1979The Appellate Division simply assumed that defendant was a first offender. 152 N.J. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Keane v. State
green
2 sentences1951Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318 (1882); Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685 (1933). 1951Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318 (1882); Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685 (1933). | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Sanders v. State
green
2 sentences1951Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318 (1882); Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685 (1933). 1951Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318 (1882); Keane v. State, 164 Md. 685 (1933). | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.