<?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; Eminent Domain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.njlandlaw.com/archives/category/eminent-domain/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>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>
	</channel>
</rss>

