Case law

Borough of Roseland v. Essex County Board

18 N.J. Misc. 613 · New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 22, 1940

Had the second such reference, which qualifies the time, subsequent to which the reduction in assessment or valuation must have been made in order to be claimed for the current year, been intended to be limited to the one … The principle clearly implicit in this judgment is an endorsement by the board of the 1934 assessment figures.

In re the Guardianship of Mark C.H.

28 Misc. 3d 765 · New York Surrogate's Court · Apr 21, 2010

Given that due process clearly applies, the question becomes precisely, “What process is due?” … This imposition of virtually complete power over the ward clearly and dramatically infringes on a ward’s liberty interests.

Moore v. Mohawk Industries, Inc.

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Dec 2, 2008

McGregor reported that on October 1, 2002, he was provided with copies of medical evaluations used by plaintiff in her successful effort to qualify for Social Security disability, reports that had not been previously made … In each attempt at placement, plaintiff has clearly evidenced intent not to cooperate fully and in good faith, in violation of the Industrial Commission Order that she do so. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-25 . 3.

Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

722 N.E.2d 926 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 31, 2000

The land order clearly intended to describe this street as it runs between Allisonville Road and Keystone Avenue. … The evidence indicates that the land valuation commission clearly placed the parcels within the 82nd Street Corridor area. (Trial Tr. at 69.)

Ooma, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 48 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 2, 2020

ongoing, but readily terminable, service relationship with customers in Oregon, taxpayer may no longer rely on its nationwide sales and marketing efforts for immunity from tax even if, as taxpayer contends, those efforts … The Court held that these thresholds showed a “clearly sufficient” nexus. Id.

Holman v. City of New York

181 Misc. 2d 15 · Civil Court of the City of New York · Apr 14, 1999

Moreover, the City also qualifies as a general contractor since it not only hired the contractor but also retained the right to have said demolition performed by or under its direction and control. … No proof was offered by the City to establish any notice “appearing of record”. .

In re the Probate of the Will of Bedell

2 Connoly 328 · New York Surrogate's Court · Jun 15, 1890

It cannot be doubted that the evidence of Hallenbeck, skilled and qualified for the performance of his duties, is much more valuable than the testimony of a witness like Mrs. … An examination of a few of the decided cases will show that the conclusions that have been reached are within the lines of well-established precedents. In Brick v. Brick, 66 N.

Gallatian v. Cunningham

8 Cow. 361 · Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · Sep 15, 1826

It is an established rule, that all acts in pari materia are to be' taken together. … Then comes this very qualifying. part of' Wood’s testimony, .to wit, “ that he had-but a faint recollection of the conversation that passed between him and Erwin-on the subject.”

General Motors Corp. v. City of Linden

20 N.J. Tax 242 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 26, 2002

Here, I must determine the allocation of the burden of proof in the context of a specific legislative scheme and clearly articulated legislative policy. … This Opinion assumes, without deciding, that the tanks in question did not qualify for exemption in 1986, 1987, and 1988.

Strawn v. State Tax Commission

1 Or. Tax 98 · Oregon Tax Court · Apr 6, 1962

established. … Clear and Convincing Evidence: Appeal of Kliks Appeal of Kliks, supra, clearly established the presumption of assessment validity upon sound reason and logic.

Fults, William v. Gant Oil Company, Inc.

2025 TN WC 62 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Oct 1, 2025

He testified that the February 14, 2024 MRI clearly showed the torn meniscus as well as “absolute complete loss of articular cartilage on the distal femur,” which was preexisting cartilage loss. 10:5-12, 23. … Turning now to the Orman factors, the Court first finds that both physicians are well-qualified to give expert opinions, so this factor favors neither. Dr. Peterson was a treating physician who saw Mr.

Aish Hatorah New York, Inc. v. Passaic City

New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 11, 2019

The personal concerns of each 2 Aish is part of Aish HaTorah (“Aish Global”), “an international Orthodox Jewish outreach organization established in Jerusalem in 1974, with branches all over the world.” … The subject property are separately assessed and identified on Passaic’s municipal tax map as Block 3309, Lot 19, Qualifier C0001, and Qualifier C0002.

Quidore v. All. Plastics, LLC

2020 NCBC 87 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 3, 2020

complaints regarding the quality of Alliance’s product, Quidore falsely represented to Alliance management that he had conducted quality control testing, and the customer was clearly … App. 2009) (“[S]ales talk or ‘puffing’ ordinarily is not sufficient to establish a claim for negligent misrepresentation or fraud.”).  27.

Rockwood Insurance v. D.E.R.

21 Pa. D. & C.3d 302 · Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board · Feb 18, 1981

Sanders’ uncontroverted testimony establishes that Rockwood affected all of the area covered by each bond and failed to reclaim all of the area covered by each bond. … Clearly, Rockwood’s interest in the bond forfeiture, unlike that of the township in the cited case, is immediate, direct and substantial.

Bossard v. Dept. of Rev. (TC-MD 190283R)

Oregon Tax Court · Nov 17, 2020

Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under IRC section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. See Reese v. … Had Plaintiff timely filed his return, he might have been entitled to a refund of some portion of the amounts withheld but not the entire amount. 6 Plaintiff’s state of mind is clearly shown by his deliberate act of filing

In re S & F Builders, Inc.

60 Pa. D. & C.2d 115 · Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board · Nov 16, 1972

Clearly, the legislature may not delegate to administrative agencies the determination of what the law shall be. Broad and general standards such as the one set forth in the statute in question are not unconstitutional. … The benefits to the public must substantially outweigh adverse environmental factors in order to qualify as being in the public interest.

Morris Int'l, Inc. v. Packer

2020 NCBC 75 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 15, 2020

However, the “privilege [to interfere] is conditional or qualified; that is, it is lost if exercised for a wrong purpose. … App. 331, 346, 328 S.E.2d 818, 829 (1985) (“[T]he complaint in an action for malicious interference with contract must clearly allege that the actions of the defendant were the cause of the plaintiff's damages and that

Smith v. Dept. of Rev.

Oregon Tax Court · Aug 22, 2025

Gross income includes “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.” Comm’r v. … Plaintiff’s interpretation of IRC sections 3401(c) and 3121(a) as excluding private employment is also contrary to established federal law. See Muhammad v.

Dept. of Rev. v. Wakefield

Oregon Tax Court · Sep 22, 2023

With respect to the Uniformity Clauses, the Department correctly points out that all the cases Taxpayer cited were factually distinguishable, and Taxpayer cited them mainly to establish the test. … In Notice 95–34 the IRS provided guidance on the tax problems raised by certain trust arrangements in seeking to qualify for exemption from section 419.

Ashby v. Department of Revenue, Tc-Md 090511c (or.tax 5-5-2011)

Oregon Tax Court · May 5, 2011

"The law is also clear that once domicile is established or determined to be in a particular location, it remains there until the person establishes a new domicile." Duncan v. … Plaintiff's second argument is more clearly articulated, but misses the mark on the facts before the court.