Bowles v. Levy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• where building was completed September 1984, an added assessment for 1985 was improper because “[i]t was not, but should have been, part of the regular assessment made on October 1, 1984 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-23”
• assessor’s failure to consider full 6 N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31 7 value of improvements that he was aware of when he placed assessment is an “erroneous determination of value” that cannot be corrected through the omitted assessment procedure
• “[t]he assessor may, in any tax year or in the succeeding tax year, assess any taxable property omitted from the assessment list for the particular tax year. N.J.S.A. 54:4-63.31. In this case the assessor's action in imposing an omitted added assessment for the balance of 1984 was proper.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).