Search this blog
Subscribe for updates
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Groundwater Connection to Navigable Waters Sufficient for CWA Violation
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decides EQT Case, Holding Daily Penalties Do Not Accrue for Continuing Presence of Pollutants In Waters of the Commonwealth
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Corporate Officer May Be Liable for Deliberate Inaction under Participation Theory
- Fifth Circuit Affirms $81 Million Clean Water Act Civil Penalty
- New Jersey Appellate Division Upholds Historic NRD Settlement; Environmental Groups Appeal
Topics
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Mineral Lease Act
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- CISWI
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Class Actions
- Nuisance
- Odors
- Trespass
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- Air
- RCRA
- Waste
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Cost Recovery
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Clean Water Act
- Deeds
- Due Process
- Marcellus Shale
- Enforcement Action
- Mineral Rights
- Wetlands
- Cases to Watch
- Real Estate
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Decisions of Note
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 1 post in Taxes.
In BASF v. Township of Toms River, No. 002155-2011 (N.J. Tax Court Dec. 5, 2013), the Court was asked to decide, in advance of trial, the proper methodology for determining the assessed value of a large tract of land that had been designated as a Superfund Site, but which contained large portions of uncontaminated and developable land. While the Township sought to discount the value of only the polluted areas of the property, the owner contended that the pollution discount must be applied to the entire parcel. And that is exactly how the Court saw it. Read More »
Share 
|
Email|
Comments|
Topics: Administrative Appeals, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, New Jersey, Real Estate, Remediation, Superfund, Taxes
|
Email|
Comments|
Topics: Administrative Appeals, CERCLA, Cleanup, Contamination, New Jersey, Real Estate, Remediation, Superfund, Taxes
