Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cherokee LCP Land, LLC v. City of Linden Planning Bd.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided August 2, 2018No. A-82 Sept. Term 2016; 079146Published

1DissentJustice Timpone

Liberality in standing should not be confused with automatic standing. In the context of land use disputes, the standing requirement protects the ability to develop property in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -112, without interference by third parties who lack any cognizable interest. The majority's decision -- that tax lienholders who have not yet foreclosed on, and may never obtain a possessory interest in, a property have standing to challenge development on adjacent land -- crosses the generous line drawn by the MLUL's liberal standing requirement…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Davis v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  2. Watkins v. Resorts International Hotel & Casino Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
  3. Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1971
  4. DEUTSCHE BANK NAT. v. MitchellNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2011
  5. Simon v. CroneckerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API