GENERAL MOTORS CORP. v. CITY OF LINDEN


150 N.J. 522 (1997)

696 A.2d 683

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF LINDEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided July 21, 1997.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Saul A. Wolfe argued the cause for appellant (Skoloff & Wolfe, attorneys; Mr. Wolfe, Robert F. Giancaterino and Elizabeth D. Abramson, of counsel and on the briefs).

Seth I. Davenport argued the cause for respondent (Garippa & Davenport, attorneys; Mr. Davenport, John E. Garippa and Philip J. Giannuario, of counsel; Mr. Davenport, Mr. Garippa, Mr. Giannuario and Kenneth R. Kosco, on the briefs).

Demetrice R. Miles, Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for intervenor-respondent City of Newark (Michelle Holler-Gregory, Corporation Counsel, attorney).

Gail L. Menyuk, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for intervenor-respondent State of New Jersey (Peter Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey; attorney Joseph L. Yannotti, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).

Donald F. Miceli argued the cause for intervenor-respondent NBCP Urban Renewal Partnership (Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein, attorneys; Mr. Miceli and Richard K. Matanle, II, of counsel and on the brief).

John B. Hall, argued the cause for amici curiae New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, New Jersey Business and Industry Association, Chemical Industry Council, Independent Energy Producers of New Jersey, Association of Graphic Communication, Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey, New Jersey Laborers-Employers' Cooperation and Education Trust, National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, New Jersey Chapter and International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Local Union No. 675 (McManimon & Scotland, attorneys; Mr. Hall and Peter Dickson, on the briefs).


The opinion of the Court was delivered by O'HERN, J.

In this case, we review again the ebb and flow of legislative and judicial efforts to distinguish between real and personal property for purposes of taxation. We last reviewed that distinction in R.C. Maxwell Co. v. Galloway Township, 145 N.J. 547, 679 A.2d 141 (1996). This appeal presents a facial challenge to the constitutionality of the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

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.

Citing Cases