MOBIL ADMINISTRATIVE v. MANSFIELD, N.J. Tax, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Steven R. Irwin argued the cause for intervenor ( Mandelbaum Mandelbaum, P.A., attorneys; Mr. Irwin, of counsel; Alan Vuernick, on the brief). Edward M. Dunne argued the cause for respondent Mansfield Township ( Valentino, Dunne Stein, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Dunne, of counsel and on the brief). Kenneth R. Kosco argued the cause for respondent Mobil Administrative Services Co. ( Garippa Davenport, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Kosco, of counsel and on the brief).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

Steven R. Irwin argued the cause for intervenor ( Mandelbaum Mandelbaum, P.A., attorneys; Mr. Irwin, of counsel; Alan Vuernick, on the brief). Edward M. Dunne argued the cause for respondent Mansfield Township ( Valentino, Dunne Stein, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Dunne, of counsel and on the brief). Kenneth R. Kosco argued the cause for respondent Mobil Administrative Services Co. ( Garippa Davenport, P.C., attorneys; Mr. Kosco, of counsel and on the brief).

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

MOBIL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CO., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND ZETA CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORP., PLAINTIFF/INTERVENOR-APPELLANT, v. MANSFIELD TOWNSHIP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Zeta Consumer Products Corporation appeals from the denial of its application made to the Tax Court to intervene in pending litigation contesting the tax assessment of property the appellant had purchased. Appellant was held to have lacked the requisite standing to intervene as required by R. 4:33-1.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Kuskin in his thorough and well-reasoned opinion reported at 15 N.J.Tax 583 (Tax Ct. 1996).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

MOBIL ADMINISTRATIVE v. MANSFIELD

MOBIL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CO., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, AND ZETA CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORP., PLAINTIFF/INTERVENOR-APPELLANT, v. MANSFIELD TOWNSHIP, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Comments