Case law

In re the Estate of Morrell

154 Misc. 356 · New York Surrogate's Court · Jan 31, 1935

(Hooley v. Gieve, 9 Abb. N. C. 8 , 21 et seq.; Storm v. McGrover, 189 N. Y. 568, 569 ; Newton v. Porter, 69 id. 133, 137; Day v. Both, 18 id. 448, 455; Perry v. Board of Missions, 102 id. 99, 104; Hale v. Omaha Nat. … Y. 415 ; National Bank v. Insurance Co., 104 U. S. 54 ; Cox v. Wills, 49 N. J. Eq. 573, 574; 22 A. 794 ; Andrews v.. Brown, [Tex.] 10 S. W. [2d] 707, 709, and authorities cited.)

Prosper Independent School Dist. v. County School Trustees

58 S.W.2d 5 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Mar 15, 1933

School District v. Willamar Ind. School District (Tex. Com. App.) 34 S.W.(2d) 854 ; El Dorado Ind. School Dist. v. Tisdale (Tex. Com. App.) 3 S.W.(2d) 420 ; State v. Brownson, 94 Tex. 436 , 61 S. W. 114 ; McPhail v. … W. 260 (writ refused); Terrell v. Clifton Ind. School District (Tex. Civ. App.) 5 S.W.(2d) 808 (writ refused).

Boatner v. Providence-Washington Ins. Co.

241 S.W. 136 · Texas Commission of Appeals · May 24, 1922

W. 469 ; Burbank v. Bigelow, 154 U. S. 558 , 14 Sup. Ct. 1163, 19 L. Ed. 51 ; New York, etc., Ry. Co. v. Estill, 147 U. S. 591, 613 , 13 Sup. Ct. 444, 37 L. Ed. 292 ; Brown v. Searls (Tex. Civ. App.) 228 S. W. 173 . … In this last quotation Judge Brown refers to the case of Smith v. Insurance Co., 118 N. Y. 526 , 23 N. E. 883 .

Wendy H Elwood Trust v. Bartholomew County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Aug 7, 2023

See Gertz v. Porter Cnty. Assessor, 187 N.E.3d 978, 984 n.8 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2022). … See, e.g., Riley-Roberts Park, LP v. O’Connor, 186 N.E.3d 162, 175 (Ind.

flanders/precisionaire Corp. v. the Bank of Ny Mellon Trust Co.

2015 NCBC 33 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 7, 2015

{13} Robert Amerson (“Amerson”) “is the former [CFO], the former President, the former [CEO], a former member of the Board of Directors, the former Chairman of the Board of Directors, and formerly the largest stockholder … See, e.g., First Union Nat'l Bank v. Brown, 166 N.C.

Princeton Alliance Church v. Mount Olive Township

25 N.J. Tax 282 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 6, 2010

In essence this standard means that “the taxpayer’s appearance [before a county board] must be more than a sham.” Wilshire Oil Co. of Texas v. Township of Jefferson, 17 N. … Village of Ridgefield Park v. Bergen County Board of Taxation, 62 N.J.Super. 133, 138 , 162 A.2d 132 (Law Div.1960) (citing City of Passaic v. Passaic County Board of Taxation, 18 N.J. 371 , 113 A.2d 753 (1955)).

Allen v. Blanchard

9 Cow. 630 · Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · Dec 15, 1827

Judgment affirmed. ) Elliot & Brown had a joint demise of a farm the profits of which they divided annually. Held, on the death of Elliot, that his moiety went to his executors. (Executor of Elliot v. Brown, Cor. Ld.

Covington v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · Apr 8, 2019

Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). … Woods v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 56, 59 (2002). “[I]f the evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed to meet his burden of proof * * *.” Reed v.

Union City Associates v. Union City

8 N.J. Tax 583 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 3, 1986

In Tax Court appeals, both assessments and county board judgments are entitled to a presumption of correctness. Pantasote Co. v. Passaic City, 100 N.J. 408, 413 , 495 A.2d 1308 (1985); Riverview Gardens v. … Westinghouse v.

Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Roberts

100 S.W.2d 91 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Jan 13, 1937

Morrison v. Insurance Co., 69 Tex. 353 , 6 S.W. 605 , 5 Am.St.Rep. 63 ; Wagner & Chabot v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 92 Tex. 549 , 50 S.W. 569 ; Niagara Ins. Co. v. Lee, 73 Tex. 641 , 11 S.W. 1024 . … United States *94 Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Taylor (Tex.Civ.App.) 11 S.W.(2d) 340 (writ ref.).

Department of Environmental Resources v. Federal Oil & Gas Co.

73 Pa. D. & C.2d 148 · Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board · Jul 1, 1975

As we said in Township of Pleasant v. … In United States Steel Corporation v. Department of Environmental Resources, supra, the court emphasized the obligation of the board to articulate the basis for civil penalties in assessing such penalties.

Williams v. N.C. D.O.C.

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Nov 7, 2003

Teer Company v. State Highway Commission , 265 N.C. 1 , 143 S.E.2d 247 (1965). … Bolkir v. NCSU , 321 N.C. 706 , 365 S.E.2d 898 (1988). 3.

Chadwick 99 Associates v. Director, Division of Taxation

24 N.J. Tax 493 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 8, 2008

of Taxation (“County Board”). … Ibid, (citing Frieman v.

FSLIC v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 389 · Oregon Tax Court · Jul 16, 1990

A preliminary issue in this case is whether plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for 1986 under ORS 306.115 because it appealed to and obtained relief from the board of equalization. In J. R. Simplot Co. v. … Esco Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 307 Or 639 , 772 P2d 413 (1989).

Larry G. Jones and Sharon F. Jones v. Jefferson County Assessor

51 N.E.3d 461 · Indiana Tax Court · May 4, 2016

STANDARD OF REVIEW The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Kildsig v. Warrick Cnty. Assessor, 998 N.E.2d 764, 765 (Ind. … See, e.g., North Park Cinemas, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 689 N.E.2d 765, 768 (Ind.

Liner v. United States Torpedo Co.

12 S.W.2d 552 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Jan 9, 1929

Gulf, etc., Co. v. Compton, 75 Tex. 667 , 13 S. W. 667 ; Fort Worth, etc., Co. v. Greathouse, 82 Tex. 104 , 17 S. W. 834 ; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 49 S. W. 265 ; Id., 92 Tex. 380 , 48 S. … Moore v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 278 S. W. 326 ; Watson Co., Builders, v. Bleeker (Tex. Civ. App.) 285 S. W. 637 ; Flagg v. Matthews (Tex. Civ. App.) 287 S. W. 299 ; Browne Grain Co. v. Farmers’ & Merchants’ Nat.

Complaints of the Taxing Districts v. Middlesex County Equalization Table

25 N.J. Misc. 353 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jun 10, 1947

In the case of State (Vail’s Executors, Pros.) v. Runyon, 41 N. J. … In the case of New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Sussex County Board, &c., 70 N. J. L. 186 (at p. 188); 56 Atl.

Lacy Diversified Industries, Ltd. v. Department of Local Government Finance

799 N.E.2d 1215 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 5, 2003

ANALYSIS AND OPINION Standard of Review The Court gives great deference to the State Board's final determinations when it acts within the seope of its authority. Clark v. … Likewise, mere references to photographs or State Board regulations, without explanation, do not qualify as probative evidence for purposes of grading issues. Heart City Chrysler v.

Mirko Blesich v. Lake County Assessor

46 N.E.3d 1285 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 30, 2015

The Indiana Board also found that the Settlement Letter lacked probative value under Indiana law. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 18-19 ¶ 19(c) (citing Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin. v. … STANDARD OF REVIEW The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Osolo Twp. Assessor v.

Bllum Ltd. v. Bloomfield Township

15 N.J. Tax 409 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 13, 1995

Plaintiff paid the taxes before September 7, 1995, the deadline under N.J.S.A. 54:51A-9 for filing a complaint in the Tax Court to review a county board judgment. See Olde Lafayette Village, Ltd. v. … An appeal to this court from a county board judgment of dismissal for untimely filing must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mayfair Holding Corp. v. North Bergen Tp., 4 N.J.