assessment challenge in New Jersey

2019We apply a similar standard on appeal, deferring to the trial court's assessment of factors "which are not transmitted by the written record." Dolson, 55 N.J. at 7 .

2016Ed. 2d 443, 450 (1989), and thus that Officer Ramos' "subjective state of mind is irrelevant to a proper assessment of the standard of objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment." We certainly agree that the substantive question in excessive force cases "is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." Id. at 397 , 109 S. Ct. at 1872 , 104 L.

2016Ed. 2d 443, 450 (1989), and thus that Officer Ramos' "subjective state of mind is irrelevant to a proper assessment of the standard of objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment." We certainly agree that the substantive question in excessive force cases "is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." Id. at 397 , 109 S. Ct. at 1872 , 104 L.

2007Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418 , 495 A.2d 1313 (1985), the Court specified that the Tax Court had to find both that “the quantum of the assessment itself is so far removed from true value and that the original assessment methodology is patently arbitrary or capricious” before it “may then properly determine true value in light of the evidence before it.” Id. at 431 , 495 A.2d 1313 .

2007Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains, 100 N.J. 418 , 495 A.2d 1313 (1985), the Court specified that the Tax Court had to find both that “the quantum of the assessment itself is so far removed from true value and that the original assessment methodology is patently arbitrary or capricious” before it “may then properly determine true value in light of the evidence before it.” Id. at 431 , 495 A.2d 1313 .

2007Pantasote held that the taxpayer’s failure to present a credible challenge to the quantum of the assessment precludes a challenge to its methodology: [A]bsent any strong indication arising from the evidence properly before the Tax Court that the quantum, of the evidence of the assessment was far wide of the mark ..., inadequacies in the ... evidence or deficiencies in the assessment methodology will not impugn the presumption of validity that attaches to the original assessment. [ Pantasote, supra, 100 N.J. at 414-15 , 495 A.2d 1308 .] In the companion property tax case of F.M.C.

2007Pantasote held that the taxpayer’s failure to present a credible challenge to the quantum of the assessment precludes a challenge to its methodology: [A]bsent any strong indication arising from the evidence properly before the Tax Court that the quantum, of the evidence of the assessment was far wide of the mark ..., inadequacies in the ... evidence or deficiencies in the assessment methodology will not impugn the presumption of validity that attaches to the original assessment. [ Pantasote, supra, 100 N.J. at 414-15 , 495 A.2d 1308 .] In the companion property tax case of F.M.C.

1985However, Singer cautions the courts to "exercise a fine discretion dominated by equitable considerations, understanding `[t]here is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations' Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra 461 U.S. at 436 , 103 S.Ct. at 1941 , 76 L.Ed. 2d at 52 ." [at 501.] The assessment challenge mounted by plaintiffs' counsel was a difficult one.

1985However, Singer cautions the courts to "exercise a fine discretion dominated by equitable considerations, understanding `[t]here is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations' Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra 461 U.S. at 436 , 103 S.Ct. at 1941 , 76 L.Ed. 2d at 52 ." [at 501.] The assessment challenge mounted by plaintiffs' counsel was a difficult one.

1978In short, it is limited to the assessment of a claim that the restrictions of the ordinance are patently arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of the statute, not that they do not match the plaintiff's or the court's conception of the requirements of the general welfare, whether within the town or the region. [ 74 N.J. at 485 ] Plaintiffs have requested that the court establish the Minimum Property Standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or that standards set forth in the New Jersey State Housing Code as the proper minimum floor space standard be used.