Dana College v. State Board of Tax Appeals
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pine Grove Manor v. Director, Div. of Taxation (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1961)
- General Electric Co. v. City of Passaic (N.J. 1958)
- City of Ventnor City v. Interdenominational Foreign Missionary Society of New Jersey, Inc. (New Jersey Tax Court 1993)
- Borough of Edgewater v. Connoil Corp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1949)
- Rafferzeder Ex Rel. Rafferzeder v. Raleigh Fitkin, Memorial Hospital (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1954)
- The Kimberley School v. Town of Montclair (N.J. 1949)
- Duke Power Co. v. Hillsborough Township (New Jersey Tax Court 1942)
- City of Trenton v. State Board of Tax Appeals (N.J. 1941)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The question at issue here is the right of appellant to an exemption from taxes. A review and discussion of the factual situation, considered upon certiorari to the Supreme Court, is contained in the opinion of that court. The writ of certiorari brought to the Supreme Court the judgment of the state board of tax appeals affirming the Essex county hoard of taxation in its denial of the exemption claimed. The Supreme Court held that the question was one of fact; declined to reverse the action of the state board of tax appeals and dismissed the writ. With this we are in accord.
We have carefully studied the testimony, the arguments advanced by appellant and the authorities relied upon by appellant, but, viewed in the aspect most favorable tb appellant, the evidence adduced below tended to support the conclusion that, as of the date of the assessment, Dana College was conducted as a commercial enterprise and the findings below, based upon conflicting evidence, cannot be disturbed here.
We are not to be understood as adopting the view expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court that incidents in proof which occurred after the assessment date tended to establish *531 that appellant is now in the exempt class. This conclusion is entirely outside the scope of the issue here presented.
With this modification, the action of the Supreme Court in dismissing the writ of certiorari is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Heher, Perskie, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Cole, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.