Jackson Tp. v. Paolin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case the proofs demonstrate that the subject property had been a fairly typical small family farm for many years, not unlike the farm in Andover Tp. v. Kymer, [ 140 N.J.Super. 399 , 356 A.2d 418 ], but that as the farmer grew old and became disabled his farming activities decreased. Applying well-established principles as set forth in the above cases, I am constrained to find from the evidence in this case that as of 1978 Lot 84 was not “actively devoted to agricultural use” within the intendment of the Farmland Assessment Act. I find that Paolin did not plant corn in 1978 and that he never harvested the corn he had planted in 1977. Paolin’s fields had been taken over by weeds in 1978 and could no longer be characterized as hay fields. The value of any cutting from the fields was at best minimal. The apples produced on Paolin’s trees were stunted and wormy from lack of pruning and spraying. The cutting of firewood was very occasional and not part of a farming effort. In short, I find that there was insufficient farming activity on the property in 1978 for the property to have qualified for farmland assessment and therefore it should not have received farmland assessment for that year. [Id. N.J. Tax at 46]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 N.J. Tax 558 - Barrett v. Borough of Frenchtown

2. “When land which is in agricultural or horticultural use and is being valued, assessed and taxed under the provisions of this act, is applied to a use other than agricultural or horticultural, it shall be subject to additional taxes, hereinafter referred to as roll-back taxes, in an amount equal to the difference, if any, between the taxes paid or payable on the basis of the valuation and the assessment authorized hereunder and the taxes that would have been paid or payable had the land been valued, assessed and taxed as other land in the taxing district, in the current tax year (the year of change in use) and in such of the 2 tax years immediately preceding, in which the land was valued, assessed and taxed as herein provided. If in the tax year in which a change in use of the land occurs, the land was not valued, assessed and taxed under this act, then such land shall be subject to roll-back taxes for such of the 2 tax years, immediately preceding, in which the land was valued, assessed and taxed hereunder. [N.J.S.A 54:4-23.8]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Angelini v. Township of Upper Freehold

3. “Apply: ... 2. To put to or adopt for a special use.... 4. To devote (oneself or one’s efforts) to something. Change: ... la. The process or condition of changing; alteration or modification; transformation, b. The replacing of one thing for another, substitution. 2. A transition from one state, condition, or phase to another; the change of seasons. 3. Something different, variety. [Id. at 48-49,181 N.J.Super. 293, 437 A .2d 344 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Centex Homes of New Jersey, Inc. v. Manalapan Township