B.P.U.M. DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
CITY OF CAMDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Submitted April 12, 1989.
Decided May 1, 1989.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Harvey C. Johnson, attorney for appellant B.P.U.M. Development and Urban Renewal Corporation (David E. Mapp, on the brief).
Patricia A. Darden, attorney for appellant City of Camden (Marcia R. Steinbock, on the brief).
Peter N. Perretti, Jr., Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Harry Haushalter, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
Wiley, Malehorn and Sirota, attorneys for Town of Morristown, amicus curiae (Robert Goldsmith and Robert G. Lavitt, on the brief; Robert Goldsmith, of counsel).
Before Judges GAULKIN and ARNOLD M. STEIN.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
PER CURIAM.
Substantially for the reasons expressed in his opinion reported at 9 N.J.Tax 490 (1988), we conclude that Judge Lario correctly held (1) that both the Urban Renewal Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55C-40 et seq.) and the Tax Abatement Law (N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.95 et seq.) require "the acceptance and execution of appropriate agreements as a precondition for an eligible project to receive tax abatement" and ...
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.
