7 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Victor & Mary Aliotta, & Silo, Inc. v. Township of Bellevillegreen1 sentence2021See Aliotta v. Twp. of Belleville, 27 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Edison Townshipgreen1 sentence2005Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a use other than the existing use of the subject property on each of the assessment dates in issue constituted its highest and best use. [I]f plaintiff seeks to demonstrate that a property’s highest and best use is other than its current use, it is incumbent upon plaintiff, and not defendant, to establish that proposition (alternate use) by a fair preponderance of the evidence. [Ford Motor Co. v. Edison Tp., supra, 10 N.J.Tax at 167.] See also, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. West Orange Tp., supra, 18 N.J.Tax at 31; Highview Estates v. Englewood Clif | 1 | 1 |
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Township of West Orangegreen1 sentence2005Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a use other than the existing use of the subject property on each of the assessment dates in issue constituted its highest and best use. [I]f plaintiff seeks to demonstrate that a property’s highest and best use is other than its current use, it is incumbent upon plaintiff, and not defendant, to establish that proposition (alternate use) by a fair preponderance of the evidence. [Ford Motor Co. v. Edison Tp., supra, 10 N.J.Tax at 167.] See also, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. West Orange Tp., supra, 18 N.J.Tax at 31; Highview Estates v. Englewood Clif | 1 | 1 |
Highview Estates v. Borough of Englewood Cliffsgreen1 sentence2005Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a use other than the existing use of the subject property on each of the assessment dates in issue constituted its highest and best use. [I]f plaintiff seeks to demonstrate that a property’s highest and best use is other than its current use, it is incumbent upon plaintiff, and not defendant, to establish that proposition (alternate use) by a fair preponderance of the evidence. [Ford Motor Co. v. Edison Tp., supra, 10 N.J.Tax at 167.] See also, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. West Orange Tp., supra, 18 N.J.Tax at 31; Highview Estates v. Englewood Clif | 1 | 1 |
Kahler v. EF Hutton & Co., Inc.green1 sentence1999Hutton & Co., Inc., 558 So. 2d 144, 145 (Fla.Dist.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
Red Devil, Inc. v. Union Townshipgreen1 sentence1985Red Devil, Inc. v. Union Tp., 5 N.J.Tax 1, 5 (Tax Ct.1982). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pacifico v. Pacifico
green
2 sentences2011“Ginger filed a cross-motion to buy out James’ interest for one-half of the value that had been established by a broker’s market analysis in 1996.” Ibid. 2011She also “certified that her understanding was that the PSA gave her a right of first refusal at the 1996 value in return for her obligation to pay all of the carrying charges on the house.” Ibid. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Custom Distribution Services, Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy Tax Assessor (In Re Custom Distribution Services, Inc.)
green
1 sentence2004Ibid. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Riverview Gardens, Section One, Inc. v. Borough of North Arlington
green
2 sentences1982Riverview Gardens v. North Arlington, 9 N.J. 167, 174-175 , 87 A.2d 425 (1952). 1982Riverview Gardens v. North Arlington, 9 N.J. 167, 174-175 , 87 A.2d 425 (1952). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.