<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Law &#187; Cases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/category/cases/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.njlandlaw.com</link>
	<description>Helping to understand land development &#38; preservation in the garden state.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:33:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>New Jersey Tax Court Exempts Intercompany Transfer From Realty Transfer Fee</title>
		<link>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/694</link>
		<comments>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/694#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher DeGrezia</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assessed value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commonly owned legal entities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[division of taxation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fee exemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intercomplany transfer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mack-cali realty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new jersey tax court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nj tax court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominal consideration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reality transfer fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reality transfer fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxation division director]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxpayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unencumbered property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlandlaw.com/?p=694</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Kenneth Norcross, Esq. 
The New Jersey Tax Court has held that transfers of unencumbered property between commonly owned legal entities, for nominal consideration, are not subject to the realty transfer fee. The court rejected the position taken by the Division of Taxation in its current regulations that such transfers are always subject to the fee [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/694/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court May Not Simply Average Expert Appraisals to Determine Valuation</title>
		<link>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/415</link>
		<comments>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/415#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:21:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher DeGrezia</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eminent Domain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appraisal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appraisals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coast guard life saving station]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fair market value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ocean city]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pansisi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pansisi custom design associates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valuation techniques]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[values]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlandlaw.com/?p=415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Matthew Barndt, Esq.      
When value is in dispute, the parties often engage competing experts to assist the court in rendering a decision.  A recent New Jersey appellate decision concluded that in such cases simple averaging of the valuations reached by competing experts “is not an appropriate methodology for assessing divergent values.”
In Pansini Custom Design [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/415/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NJ Appellate Division Rules that Commercial Tenants are not Entitled to Personal Notice of a Redevelopment Designation but can Challenge the Designation in a Condemnation Action</title>
		<link>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/332</link>
		<comments>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/332#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher DeGrezia</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eminent Domain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Landlord/Tenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Notice Requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Redevelopment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Condemnation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DeRose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Due Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harrision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iron Mountain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[landlord]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Local Redevelopment and Housing Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LRHL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[redeveloper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tenancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tenant]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlandlaw.com/?p=332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Andy S. Norin, Esq. and Joshua J. Franklin, Esq.
On March 13, the Appellate Division decided Iron Mountain Information Management Inc. v. City of Newark, 405 N.J. Super. 599, which addresses the scope of the Appellate Division’s prior ruling in Harrison Redevelopment Agency v. DeRose, 398 N.J. Super. 361 (2008), regarding notice requirements under the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/332/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NJ Supreme Court Rules on the Validity of Open Space/Recreational Fees and Set Asides</title>
		<link>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/301</link>
		<comments>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/301#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher DeGrezia</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Approvals & Permits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Development Application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Land Use Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ordinances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Planned Unit Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preservation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appellate Division]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Builders League of South Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Egg Harbor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green space fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jackson Township]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MLUL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey Shore Builders Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NJ Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open space]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open space fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[planned development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recreational fee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[set asides]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlandlaw.com/?p=301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This morning, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the Appellate Division striking down ordinances in Jackson Township and Egg Harbor.  The court held that the Municipal Land Use Law does not empower municipal governments to require developers to set aside land for common open space or recreational areas and facilities (or to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/301/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tree Removal Ordinance Aimed at Developers Upheld by the New Jersey Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/257</link>
		<comments>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/257#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:48:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher DeGrezia</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ordinances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ordinance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tree Removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Upheld]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vagueness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.njlandlaw.com/?p=257</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New Jersey Supreme Court recently upheld the validity of a Township ordinance that requires developers to replace the trees they remove during development or pay a fee into a special &#8220;tree escrow fund&#8221; dedicated to planting trees and shrubs on public property. In the case of NJ Shore Builders Association v. Township of Jackson, the state Supreme [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/257/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

