Case law

CVS Corporation 2519-01, taxpayer v. Jerome Prince, in his official capacity as Lake County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · May 22, 2020

STANDARD OF REVIEW The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Osolo Twp. Assessor v. … Assessor v. Stutz Bus. Ctr., 132 N.E.3d 85, 89 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 2019); Joyce Sportswear Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 684 N.E.2d 1189, 1193 (Ind.

PACE, JAKOBE v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

2026 TN WC 71 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · May 22, 2026

Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2025); Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If UPS meets this burden, Mr. … The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted.

Krouse v. South Hills Health System

12 Pa. D. & C.3d 679 · Pennsylvania Arbitration Panels for Health Care · Feb 26, 1979

Defendant Brown thus contends that Kennywood is jointly or severally or solely hable to defendant Brown in the event that plaintiff recovers a verdict against Brown. … The case presented here can be disposed of based on the analogous situation that was present in Gillette v. Redinger, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 469 , 383 A. 2d 1295 (1978).

Opinion No. (2011)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 24, 2011

Jobe v. State ex rel. Dep't of Pub. Safety , 243 P.3d 1171 , 1175 (Okla. 2010). … Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp. , 230 P.3d 853 , 859 (Okla. 2010).

Bowles v. Norandal USA, Inc.

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Dec 4, 2008

In 1972 plant management asked the State Board of Health to conduct an industrial hygiene survey of the Maranite shop. … Stat. § 97-53 (13); Booker v. Duke Medical Center , 297 N.C. 458 (1979). 3.

Opinion No. (1995)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 28, 1995

of education ("board") has sole control over student activity funds ("activity funds"). 1 The purpose of the activity funds must be approved and regulated by the board. … Independent School District No. 8 of Seiling v. Swanson, 553 P.2d 496 , 501 (Okla. 1976) citing Board of Education of Oklahoma City v.

Hernandez v. West New York

18 N.J. Tax 438 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 21, 1999

The primary purpose of the Tax Court is to hear tax appeals and other tax related matters from both state agencies and county boards of taxation. Alid, Inc. v. … As in Alid, Inc. v. Township of North Bergen, this court was requested to order the defendant municipality to pay interest and counsel fees and costs for taxpayers’ efforts to enforce county board of taxation judgments.

Merritt, Kenneth v. Flextronics, Inc.

2022 TN WC 31 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Apr 4, 2022

In Watson v. Catlett Constr., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. … Likewise, in Meier v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.

In Re Joyce

712 A.2d 834 · Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania · Feb 18, 1998

The Judicial Conduct Board (Board) is empowered by Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to file formal charges alleging ethical misconduct on the part of judges, justices or justices of … The Judicial Conduct Board (Board) is empowered by Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to file formal charges alleging ethical misconduct on the part of judges, justices or justices of

18 Washington Place Associates v. City of Newark

8 N.J. Tax 608 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 29, 1986

Kingsley v. Wes Outdoor Advertising Co., 55 N.J. 336 , 262 A.2d 193 (1970); State by State Highway Comm’r v. Dilley, 48 N.J. 383 , 226 A.2d 1 (1967); Perry v. … Newark v. Fischer, 3 N.J. 488 , 70 A. 2d 733 (1950); Suburban Dept. Stores v. East Orange, 47 N.J.Super. 472 , 136 A.2d 280 (App.Div.1957); Danis v. Middlesex Cty.

Opinion No. 77-142 (1977) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 29, 1977

In a 1924 California case, Goldsmith v. … Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 (1968). As stated by the United States Supreme Court in the ease of Tinker v.

Opinion No. 73-191 (1973) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 13, 1973

E.2d 802), must not be unfair (Inland Steel Company) v. N.L.R.B., 109 F.2d 9 ), must not be discriminatory or arbitrary (Railroad Commissioner v. Shell Oil Company, 206 S.W.2d 420 , 146 Tex. 286 and Krill v. … Supp. 14 ), must not be an expression of a whim (American Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. United States, 57 S.Ct. 170 , 299 U.S. 232 , 81 L.Ed. 142 ; and Nelson v.

Opinion No. (1999)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 19, 1999

Id. ; see also Hodges v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 580 P.2d 980 , 982 (Okla. 1978); cf. Hodges v. Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 48 OKLA. B.J. 31 (1976) ( opinion withdrawn, 49 OKLA. … See Imperial Irrigation District v. Water Resources Control Board, 275 Cal. Rptr. 250 , 265-6 (Cal.Ct.App. 1990); In re Permit Application No. 37-7108, 530 P.2d 924 , 931-32 (Idaho 1974).

Opinion No. 77-239 (1977) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 12, 1977

In the case of Spearman v. … In the case of Rosen v. New York City Teacher's Retirement Board, et al., 115 N.Y.

Opinion No. (2007)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 19, 2007

In a case involving the Governor and a corporation commissioner, the Oklahoma Supreme Court, in Nesbitt v. … Jackson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 16 , 648 P.2d 26 , 29 (Okla. 1982). In your inquiry, the language of 51 O.S. 2001 , § 8[ 51-8 ] is plain and its meaning must be accepted.

Opinion No. 78-206 (1978) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 20, 1978

With respect to that which constitutes in law a public office or public officer, this office has previously noted and applied those tests and criteria set forth in the cases of State v. Sowards, 64 Okl. … Cr. 430 , 82 P.2d 324 (1938) and Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Company, 178 Okl. 212 , 62 P.2d 94 (1936). In Sowards, supra, the Court stated, in paragraphs 2 and 3 of its syllabus: "2.

In Re Hamilton

2 Pa. D. & C.5th 129 · Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania · Jun 13, 2007

INTRODUCTION The Judicial Conduct Board (Board) filed a Complaint with this Court on November 2, 2006 against Magisterial District Judge Maynard A. … This action is taken pursuant to the authority of the Board under Article V, § 18 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Judicial Conduct Board Rule of Procedure 31(A)(3), promulgated by the Pennsylvania

Moroney v. State

67 Misc. 58 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 15, 1910

In the case of State v. County of Kings, 125 N. Y. 312 , the State undertook to authorize the Board of Claims to determine a claim of the State against certain counties. … DeHart v. Hatch, 3 Hun, 375 ; Anderson v. Reilly, 66 N. Y. 189 ; Alexander v. Bennett, 60 id. 204 . In Alexander v.

Southlake Indiana LLC v. Lake County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 8, 2020

STANDARD OF REVIEW The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Osolo Twp. Assessor v. … Assessor v. Sedd Realty Co., 125 N.E.3d 676, 680 (Ind.

Opinion No. (1991) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 25, 1991

TERRY V. EDGIN, 598 P.2D 228 (OKLA. 1979). … STATE V. SUPERIOR COURT, WASH., 346 P.2D 999 (1959)."