INMAR ASSOCIATES, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BOROUGH OF CARLSTADT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
GAF CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BOROUGH OF SOUTH BOUND BROOK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued February 29, 1988.
Decided October 13, 1988.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Edward J. Egan argued the cause for appellant Inmar Associates, Inc. (Edward J. Egan, attorney; Edward J. Egan and William J. Gianos, on the brief).
Steven R. Irwin argued the cause for appellant GAF Corporation (Mandelbaum & Mandelbaum, attorneys; Waldron Kraemer, of counsel; Steven Irwin and Waldron Kraemer, on the brief).
Richard D. Millet argued the cause for respondent Borough of South Bound Brook (Hampson & Millet, attorneys; Alan L. Brodman, on the brief).
John J. Langan, Jr., argued the cause for respondent Borough of Carlstadt (DeCotiis & Pinto, attorneys).
Harry Haushalter, Deputy Attorney General, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Director, Division of Taxation (Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Michael R. Clancy, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel).
John E. Garippa submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae, Mellen Chemicals, Inc. (Garippa & Trevenen, attorneys; Calvin O. Trevenen and Philip J. Giannuario, on the brief).
Mary C. Jacobson, Deputy Attorney General, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Michael R. Clancy, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel).
Brian J. Kelly submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae The New Jersey State Bar Association (Mr. Kelly, on the brief).
Saul A. Wolfe submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae New Jersey State League of Municipalities and Association of Municipal Assessors of New Jersey (Skoloff & Wolfe, attorneys).
The Supreme Court of New Jersey.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by O'HERN, J.
This appeal concerns the proper method for determining the assessed value of real property subject to governmentally-imposed requirements for environmental cleanup. We agree with the courts below that neither case presented an adequate basis under proper appraisal techniques for reaching the correct value by the simple expedient of deducting the estimated cost of such cleanups...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
