From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

The City of East Orange v. Township of Livingston

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jun 2, 1969
54 N.J. 96 (N.J. 1969)

Opinion

Argued May 5, 1969 —

Decided June 2, 1969.

Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Mr. Jack Okin argued the cause for appellant.

Mr. Louis Bort argued the cause for respondent Township of Livingston.

Mr. Harold M. Kain argued the cause for respondent Township of Millburn. Mr. Arthur J. Sills, Attorney Geral of New Jersey, filed a statement in lieu of brief in behalf of respondent Essex County Board of Taxation ( Mr. Charles H. Landesman, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel).


The City of East Orange sought a declaration that its water reserve property located in defendant municipalities should be assessed as farmland under the Farmland Assessment Act of 1964, L. 1964, c. 48; N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.1 et seq. The trial court found against the City, 102 N.J. Super. 512 ( Law Div. 1968), and we certified its appeal before argument in the Appellate Division.

The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons given by the trial court. We agree also with the trial court that the matter of valuation under the statute dealing with local taxation of water reserve lands, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.3, is not involved, and we therefore express no view with respect to it.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 6.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

The City of East Orange v. Township of Livingston

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jun 2, 1969
54 N.J. 96 (N.J. 1969)
Case details for

The City of East Orange v. Township of Livingston

Case Details

Full title:THE CITY OF EAST ORANGE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jun 2, 1969

Citations

54 N.J. 96 (N.J. 1969)
253 A.2d 546

Citing Cases

City of Newark v. W. Milford Twp.

Consequently, in attempting to determine the highest and best use and true or market value of watershed…

Mt. Hope Mining Co. v. Rockaway TP

Ignoring defendant's assertion of an exclusive use test, plaintiff responds that, because the dominant use of…