Case law

Township of Washington v. Warren County Tax Administrator

19 N.J. Tax 1 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 23, 2000

That a county board may use any “reasonable and efficient mode” of equalization was established in City of Passaic v. Passaic County Board of Taxation, 18 N.J. 371 , 113 A.2d 753 (1955). In Carteret Borough v. … In Woodbridge Township v.

Asberry, Whitney Rae v. Cummins Filtration

2022 TN WC 2 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Jan 14, 2022

Armstrong v. Chattanooga Billiard Club, 2020 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 40, at *10 (Jan. 21, 2020). … To appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, you must: 1.

City of Camden v. Camden Masonic Ass'n

9 N.J. Tax 331 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 7, 1987

Jersey City v. … [Little Egg Harbor Tp. v.

Question Submitted by: The Honorable Dana Prieto, Oklahoma State Senate, District 34

2024 OK AG 6 · Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 26, 2024

COM'RS Discussed at Length 1924 OK 396 , 231 P. 250 , 104 Okla. 260 , BOARD OF COM'RS OF TULSA COUNTY v. NEWS-DISPATCH PRINT Discussed 2010 OK 5 , 237 P.3d 134 , ESTATE OF CROWELL v. … F.O.P., Lodge No. 188 v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa Co. Discussed at Length 1982 OK 133 , 658 P.2d 464 , Summey v. Tisdale Discussed at Length 1951 OK 262 , 236 P.2d 987 , 205 Okla. 233 , JOHNSTON v.

Toone v. City of Camden

19 N.J. Misc. 600 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 9, 1941

In view of the foregoing, we need not reflect upon the propriety of the reversals by the county board of its prior determinations. But see City of Newark v. … Stevens Institute v. State Board (Supreme Court, 1928), 105 N. J. L. 99; 143 Atl. Rep. 356 ; C. F. Mueller Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals (Supreme Court, 1941), 126 N. J. L. 141; 18 Atl. Rep. (2d) 564.

Bosamia v. Marion County Assessor

969 N.E.2d 635 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 19, 2012

of Appeals v. … See e.g., Whittaker v. Dail, 584 N.E.2d 1084, 1087 (Ind.1992); Shane v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 869 N.E.2d 1232, 1235-36 (Ind.Ct.App.2007); Flying J, Inc. v. Jeter, 720 N.E.2d 1247, 1249-50 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).

Bear Creek Plaza, Ore., Ltd. v. Department of Revenue

12 Or. Tax 272 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 17, 1992

Widmer, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 261 Or 371, 374 , 494 P2d 854 (1972) (quoting Citizens’ Nat. Bk. v. Board of Equalization, 109 Or 669 , 222 P 341 (1924)). … Although there is no definition of “parcel,” in First Interstate Bank v.

Clapa v. Multnomah County Assessor

Oregon Tax Court · May 21, 2012

Jeffrey Brown (Brown), Real Property Appraiser, Multnomah County Oregon, Division of Assessment, Recording & Taxation, appeared on behalf of Defendant. … The Multnomah County Board of Property Tax Appeals Order, dated March 4, 2011, determined a real market value of $165,340 for Account R175194.

Rothenfluch v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 322 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 3, 1990

Liquid Air Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 159 (1979). … United States v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 165 US 463 , 17 S Ct 368 , 41 L Ed 789 (1897); United States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 148 US 31 , 13 S Ct 458 , 37 L Ed 354 (1893).

Gugler v. Baker County Education Service District

10 Or. Tax 315 · Oregon Tax Court · Nov 26, 1986

Where judgment must be exercised by the administrative board or body, the questioned decision must fall into the area of unreasonable before the court will overturn it. Rogue River Pack. v. … Stasher v. Harger-Haldeman, 58 Cal *327 2d 23, 372 P2d 649, 652 (1962), quoted in Dept. of Rev. v. Umatilla County, 10 OTR 309 (1986).

MCCOOL, MARTHA v. PROFESSIONAL CARE SERVICES

2025 TN WC 59 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Aug 13, 2025

.: 2022-08-0687 Employee, ) v. ) PROFESSIONAL CARE SERVICES, ) State File No.: 99553-2019 Employer, ) And … The Appeals Board has not offered guidance on the definition of “unreasonable” in this context since the statutory change.

Carney v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

2022 Ohio 1599 · Ohio Court of Claims · Mar 28, 2022

As stated in Brown v. … Brown, 10th District No. 13AP-804, 2014-Ohio-1810 at ¶ 15.

Bedford Apartments v. Jean

843 N.E.2d 78 · Indiana Tax Court · Mar 2, 2006

Bedford Apartments, LP (Bedford) appeals the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) assessing its real property for the 2001 tax year. … See State v.

Tolentino v. Oxford Township

4 N.J. Tax 173 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 1, 1982

Effective July 1, 1979 this time period was amended to require filing an appeal complaint “within 45 days of service of the judgment of the county board.” In Evesham Tp. v. Nye, 3 N.J. … The statutory requirements for the filing of appeals from judgments of county boards of taxation are strictly construed and they must be filed in a timely fashion. See Newark v.

A. E. Ottaviano, Inc. v. State

41 Misc. 2d 578 · New York Court of Claims · Jan 14, 1964

(Cummings v. Morris, 25 N. Y. 625, 627 .) The consideration paid, the purpose of the assignment, the use to be made of any proceeds collected are immaterial. (Allen v. Brown, 44 N. Y. 228 ; Meeker v. Claghorn, 44 N. … Y. 349 ; Sheridan v. Mayor, 68 N. Y. 30 ; Brown v. Powers, 53 App. Div. 251 .) The assignment herein fails to indicate that all of the assignor’s interest in the claim is transferred to the assignee.

Amerson v. Johnston Cty. Bd of Educ.

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Nov 29, 2000

Defendant, Johnston County Board of Education, is a State agency and Linda Harris was an employee of the defendant at the time of the alleged negligence. 4. … On 20 April 1998 Sunny Hill Road was part of the regular bus route set by the Johnston County Board of Education. Ms.

Texas Employers' Ins. v. Shilling

289 S.W. 996 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Jan 12, 1927

And that the insurer is the “adverse party” in such a ease is the necessary result of the holding in Soloranzo v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n (Tex. Civ. App.) 264 S. … See, also, Moore v. Lumbermen’s Reciprocal Ass’n, 262 S.

Galloway v. Lumbermen's Indemnity Exchange

238 S.W. 646 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Mar 22, 1922

This principle of law was announced by the Texarkana Court of Civil Appeals in Waterman Lumber Co. v. Beatty, 204. S. W. 448. In that case the injured employs sued the employer direct, and recovered judgment. … said final ruling and decision by -said board give notice to the adverse party and to the board that he will not abide by said final ruling and decision.

Phillipsburg Riverview Organization, Inc. v. Town of Phillipsburg

26 N.J. Tax 167 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 16, 2011

This court observes that County Boards of Taxation are quasi-judicial bodies but not courts within the intent and meaning of R. 1:21—1 (c). Vicari v. … The Board never determined whether PRO could appear pro se or whether R. 1:21-1 (c) was applicable to proceedings before County Boards of Taxation. See arguendo Stack v. P.G.

Borough of Rumson v. Peckham

7 N.J. Tax 539 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 15, 1985

Co. v. Newark, 10 N.J. 99 , 89 A.2d 385 (1952); Passaic v. … Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the county board judgment was sustained. Similarly, in Inmar Associates, Inc. v.