Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy

567 A.2d 597, 237 N.J. Super. 280, 11 N.J. Tax 480, 1989 N.J. Super. LEXIS 437
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedDecember 1, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 567 A.2d 597 (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy, 567 A.2d 597, 237 N.J. Super. 280, 11 N.J. Tax 480, 1989 N.J. Super. LEXIS 437 (N.J. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The City of Perth Amboy appeals from a judgment of the Tax Court. The Tax Court judge framed the issue of the case as whether the real property at plaintiffs refinery in Perth Amboy was, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-23, properly assessed for local tax purposes for the tax years of 1984 and 1985, and, if not, what the appropriate assessments should be. The judge concluded the City had over-assessed the real property. He set the assessable values, in the aggregate, as:

1984 1985
Land $ 3,426,000 Land $ 2,964,300
Improvement 54,191,000 Improvement 45,189,400
Total $57,617,000 Total $48,153,700
The City, on this appeal, argues:
POINT I: CHEVRON FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH BY COMPETENT, DEFINITE AND POSITIVE TESTIMONY [281]*281THAT ITS REFINERY COULD ONLY PRODUCE ASPHALT IN THE FUTURE. AS A RESULT, VALUATIONS BASED UPON THIS CONCEPT ARE ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE SET ASIDE.
POINT II: CHEVRON’S EXPERT APPRAISER ERRONEOUSLY VALUED A GREAT PART OF THE REFINERY’S IMPROVEMENTS BY UNORTHODOX AND UNACCEPTABLE PROCEDURES AND HIS RESULTING VALUATIONS WERE ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTED BY THE TRIAL COURT.

These contentions raise no issue as to the assessable value of the land. Thus, our review relates only to the assessable value of the improvements.

We have analyzed the record in light of the contentions and applicable principles of law. We find the City’s contentions clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(A), (E).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons set forth in Judge Andrew’s comprehensive written opinion.1

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

General Motors Corp. v. Linden City
22 N.J. Tax 95 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2005)
DSC of Newark Enterprises v. Borough of South Plainfield
17 N.J. Tax 510 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1997)
State v. HOPE ROAD ASSOCIATES
630 A.2d 387 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1993)
Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co. v. West Deptford Township
13 N.J. Tax 242 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1993)
Double R Enterprises v. City of East Orange
13 N.J. Tax 54 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1993)
Bloomfield Associates v. Town of Bloomfield
12 N.J. Tax 501 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1992)
Badische Corp. v. Town of Kearny
11 N.J. Tax 385 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1990)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy
11 N.J. Tax 190 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1990)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy
583 A.2d 324 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
567 A.2d 597, 237 N.J. Super. 280, 11 N.J. Tax 480, 1989 N.J. Super. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chevron-usa-inc-v-city-of-perth-amboy-njsuperctappdiv-1989.