Case law

Artis v. City of New York

133 Misc. 2d 629 · Civil Court of the City of New York · Nov 28, 1986

Clearly, the express exclusion, in section 781, of a single, specific category of receiver from the definition of "owner” was intended by the Legislature as an implied inclusion of all other persons. … The City argues that despite RPAPL 781 it is immune from the application of article 7-A because of the nature of the fee ownership it has acquired.

LeSea Broadcasting Corp. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

525 N.E.2d 637 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 17, 1988

“It is well established that statutes exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed in favor of the tax, and the burden is upon the one claiming the exemption to show that the property clearly falls within … Even if LeSea's property does not qualify for exemption under IC 6.1-1-10-21, it is not precluded from qualifying under IC 6-1.1-10-16 if it meets that statute’s qualifications.

In re the Estate of Resnick

76 Misc. 2d 541 · New York Surrogate's Court · Dec 3, 1973

In most cases it is designed to establish a fiduciary to care for the retard-ate after the parents (or concerned relatives) are gone. … Letters shall issue to the petitioner upon qualifying according to law.

In re the Estate of Borden

142 Misc. 44 · New York Surrogate's Court · Nov 24, 1931

The amount of property which it may take and hold in mortmain is restricted; but its ownership is absolute, and only qualified by its artificial nature. … The clause in question clearly creates a condition subsequent, for the breach of which a forfeiture might be claimed.

State v. W. Sky Fin., LLC

2015 NCBC 84 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 27, 2015

The movant bears the burden of establishing the right to a preliminary injunction. Pruitt v. Williams, 288 N.C. 368, 372 (1975). … An injunction that is mandatory in nature, rather than prohibitory, “will ordinarily be granted only where the injury is immediate, pressing, irreparable, and clearly established.” Auto. Dealer Res., Inc. v.

Aldrich v. Catel Service Co.

51 Misc. 2d 16 · Civil Court of the City of New York · Jul 28, 1966

It is apparent from the motion papers that the document in question cannot qualify for immunity on the last-mentioned theory. … The difficulty and complexity of the problem of determining whether the statement in question qualifies for immunity from discovery under CPLB 3101 (subd.

Whitelick Indiana Aerie 3702 Fraternal Order of Eagles, Inc. v. Hendricks County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

82 N.E.3d 940 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 1, 2017

Burden on Taxpayer to Establish Exempt Status. … Prior to the establishment of this court, in Fort Wayne Sport Club, Inc., the Court of Appeals held that, “the exemption is very clearly limited to such association as that term is defined in the 1935 act at § 181, [now,

Estate of Fabiano v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 50901(U) · New York Court of Claims · Apr 16, 2025

In opposition to the motion, Claimant argues that the State has failed to "conclusively establish entitlement to immunity". … Thus, these actions may be recommenced if they qualify for recommencement under CPLR 205 (a)".

Cayuge Bridge Co. v. Magee

6 Wend. 85 · Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · Dec 15, 1830

Upon both these considerations the act of 1799 should not be construed so as to confer upon the company powers and privileges which are not expressly granted or clearly implied. … As it repeals all parís of the original act which provide for tolls or grant any privileges and immunities, if the power remains in the parts not repealed, it can only be of building a free bridge, at which they could not

People v. Kanhai

8 Misc. 3d 447 · Criminal Court of the City of New York · May 2, 2005

The records in issue before this court are clearly business records. … The test is conducted routinely by the State Police as a regular course of their business in maintaining highway safety by ensuring the accuracy of tests performed by police departments throughout the state and clearly qualifies

Roseburg Lumber Co. v. Commission

3 Or. Tax 323 · Oregon Tax Court · Dec 3, 1968

. *325 denied, 385 US 830 (1966), to support its findings that plaintiff is not an importer entitled to immunity from taxation under the United States Constitution. … The evidence established that under normal conditions Lauan veneer could be supplied from the Philippine Islands in not to exceed three months, and birch veneer from Canada in not to exceed two months.

Estate of Fabiano v. State of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 50901(U) · New York Court of Claims · Apr 16, 2025

In opposition to the motion, Claimant argues that the State has failed to "conclusively establish entitlement to immunity". … Thus, these actions may be recommenced if they qualify for recommencement under CPLR 205 (a)".

McClain Museum, Inc. v. Madison County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Nov 7, 2019

(6) Establish a facility for display of vehicles and equipment. … The Museum argues on appeal that the Indiana Board clearly erred in its denial of the educational purposes exemption because military history “is both directly and indirectly related to subjects taught at our tax supported

Perkins v. Department of Revenue

15 Or. Tax 381 · Oregon Tax Court · Sep 19, 2001

The legislature clearly intended that if ownership or use changes, the organization must file a new statement. … The court believes it is clearly a situation where the assessor failed to timely disqualify property from exemption.

Maxim v. Maxim

203 Misc. 610 · New York Family Court · Dec 22, 1952

In the light of the established principle that a father is under the primary obligation to support his minor children, regardless of any resources or fault of the mother, according to the father’s financial capacity and station … In the latter case he is immune from service of process upon Mm.”

Wrinn v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol

2011 Ohio 5963 · Ohio Court of Claims · Oct 17, 2011

Plaintiff argues that as a result of his actions Johnson is not entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F) and 9.86. {¶14} The issue whether an employee is entitled to immunity is a question of law. … “‘[M]ere negligence is not converted into wanton misconduct unless the evidence establishes a disposition to perversity on the part of the tortfeasor.’” Fabrey v.

Hillcrest Health Service System, Inc. v. Hackensack City

18 N.J. Tax 38 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 20, 1998

In the present circumstances, ownership and use are clearly divided between the hospital and its parent, and Jersey Shore’s analysis does not control. … That decision clearly recognizes the general rule that exemption requires an actual use of property for exempt purposes and not merely an intended or projected use.

Spiotta Bros. v. Township of Mine Hill

1 N.J. Tax 42 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 4, 1980

Township’s contention that taxpayer cannot question the 1977 county board judgment by reason of its failure to file a cross-appeal is clearly erroneous. In Hackensack v. … N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.1 et seq., establishes that in order to qualify for farmland assessment the land, consisting of at least five acres, must have been actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use for at least the two

Zulauf v. State

119 Misc. 2d 135 · New York Court of Claims · May 9, 1983

This has been interpreted to mean that the immunity accorded can only be denied where there is evidence of an exercise of these privileges in excess of reasonableness under the circumstances. … With respect to Blanche and William Peltier, the nexus between the trooper’s negligence and the fire which resulted in their deaths has been clearly established.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Dept. of Rev.

24 Or. Tax 549 · Oregon Tax Court · May 3, 2021

On the other hand, the court should not admit expert testimony if the finder of fact “clearly is equally qualified [to determine the facts] with- out help from opinion testimony.” Yundt, 259 Or at 259. … In the “area between the clearly qualified [trier of fact] and the clearly unqualified [trier of fact],” the court has “a certain latitude of decision in excluding or receiving expert opin- ion testimony.”