Case law

Kolchins v. Evolution Markets, Inc.

73 N.Y.S.3d 519 · Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · Mar 29, 2018

City of New York , 19 N.Y.3d 556 , 571, 950 N.Y.S.2d 301 , 973 N.E.2d 711 [2012], quoting Brown Bros. Elec. Contrs. v. Beam Constr. Corp. , 41 N.Y.2d 397 , 398, 393 N.Y.S.2d 350 , 361 N.E.2d 999 [1977] ). … Defendant also relies upon Pachter v.

Rossi v. Upper Pittsgrove Township

12 N.J. Tax 235 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 3, 1992

. *241 Pantasote Co v. Passaic City, 100 N.J. 408, 417 , 495 A.2d 1308 (1985). In support of its position that a temporary cessation of farming constitutes a change in use, the taxing district cites Hamilton Township v. … Turnpike Auth. v. Washington Tp. 137 N.J.Super. 543 , 350 A.2d 69 (App.Div.1975), aff’d o.b. 73 N.J. 180 , 373 A.2d 652 (1977).

Opinion No. (1997)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 12, 1997

The purpose of the activity funds must be approved and regulated by the board. … Public Service Company of Oklahoma v. Oklahoma Corporation Commission, 842 P.2d 750 , 752 (Okla. 1992). It is presumed that the Legislature, in the statute, said what it meant and meant what it said. Darnell v.

Opinion No. (1988)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 23, 1988

The degree of authority granted to these various other boards of regents varies tremendously from board to board, even as among the constitutionally authorized boards, and no attempt is made here to examine such differences … Draper v. State Board of Equalization, 414 P.2d 276 (Okla. 1966). Legislative silence, when it has authority to speak, may be considered as giving rise to an implication of legislative intent. City of Duncan v.

BRAULIO J. HERNANDEZ RAMOS v. TEJ PRAMUKH HOSPITALITY, INCORPORATED, d/b/a ECONO LODGE

2025 TN WC 27 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · May 14, 2025

Code Ann. § 20-16-101 (2022); see also Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 264 (Tenn. 2015). If TEJ does either or both, Ms. … The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted.

Lockerman v. South River Elec. Membership Corp.

2012 NCBC 44 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 8, 2012

Lockerman v. South River Elec. Membership Corp., 2012 NCBC 46. … See Broussard v. Meineke Disc.

In re Fletcher

1 Misc. 2d 25 · New York Family Court · Jan 11, 1955

(Garlock v. Garlock, 279 N. Y. 337 ; Haas v. Haas, 298 N. Y. 69 ; Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 278 App. Div. 446 ; Horowitz v. Horowitz, 197 Misc. 260 .) … 623 ; Helman v.

People v. Valerio

54 Misc. 3d 791 · Criminal Court of the City of New York · Dec 5, 2016

(People v Brown, 31 Misc 3d 794, 796 [Rochester City Ct 2011].) … People v Peluso, 192 Misc 2d 33 [Crim Ct, Kings County 2002] [statement of readiness illusory]; People v Tisdale, 18 Misc 3d 1125[A] , 2008 NY Slip Op 50201[U] [Crim Ct, Kings County 2008] [same]; People v Seepersad, 52 Misc

Kubic v. Audette

Massachusetts Land Court · Feb 11, 2021

In support of their request, the Plaintiffs rely principally on Brown v. … Quoting Baxendale v.

DAVIDSON, JAMES v. GIBSON GUITAR

2025 TN WC 2 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Jan 28, 2025

As the Appeals Board has stated, “parties and their lawyers cannot rely solely on their own medical interpretations of the evidence to successfully support their arguments.” Lurz v. Int’l Paper Co., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. … Heard v. Carrier Corp., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 16, at *5 (Apr. 20, 2018).

Opinion No. (2008)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 22, 2008

of Nursing, to order, select, obtain and administer legend drugs, Schedules II through V controlled substances, devices, and medical gases only when engaged in the preanesthetic preparation and evaluation; anesthesia induction … The Board may terminate the authorization granted to a CRNA as follows: d.

Opinion No. (1988)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Sep 9, 1988

Jackson v. Ind . School District No. 16, Payne County, 648 P.2d 26 (Okla. 1982). … In this instance, the language employed by the Legislature indicates that a board of regents in the State System may not hire such a firm or individual for a two-year period if the board in question retains the same firm

MCMILLIAN, LANELL v. ULG COMPANIES, LLC

2025 TN WC 25 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · May 12, 2025

In Harrogate Corp. v. Systems Sales Corp., 915 S.W.2d 2 812, 816 (Tenn. Ct. … The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted.

Opinion No. (1985)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 2, 1985

See also, Magnolia Petroleum Company v. Jefferson County Excise Board , 90 P.2d 648 (Okla. 1939); Tulsa County Excise Board v. … See, City of Healdton v. Board of Education , 232 P.2d 148 (Okla. 1951) (bondholder may bring action, including mandamus, when school district refuses to levy annual taxes to pay for improvements); Board of Education v.

Opinion No. 72-210 (1972) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 20, 1972

A similar provision, though, was construed in Elder v. Anderson, 205 Cal.App.2d 326 , 23 Cal.Rptr. 48 (1962). … A determination of the propriety of issuing such information would then be a decision of the local school district Board of Education, such Board being the governing authority of the school district, see 70 O.S. 5 -106 [

Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Release Comp. Bd. v. Std. Oil Co.

2019 Ohio 2455 · Ohio Court of Claims · May 17, 2019

In Amoco v. … In Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v.

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 26, 1980

See State v. Guardian Funeral Home, Okl. 429 P.2d 732 (1967). … See First National Bank v. Oklahoma Savings and Loan Board, 569 P.2d 993 (1977).

Opinion No. (1985)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 6, 1985

Dear Honorable Moss, The Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion asking, in effect: Does a County Board of Equalization have the authority to request a taxpayer to submit information to the Board … Hughes Drilling Co. v. Morgan , 648 P.2d 32 (Okla. 1982); Cave Springs Public School District I-30 v. Blair , 613 P.2d 1046 (Okla. 1980).

Schimpf v. Little Egg Harbor Township

14 N.J. Tax 338 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 9, 1994

In *329 appeals to the Tax Court there is a presumption that a judgment entered by a county board of taxation is correct. Riverview Gardens v. North Arlington Bor., 9 N.J. 167, 87 A.2d 425 (1952). … This presumption stands until it is overcome by evidence that is sufficiently “definite, positive and certain in quality and quantity” to prove a valuation different from the county board’s judgment. Ford Motor Co. v.

Camelot Company, LLC v. Bartholomew County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 6, 2023

STANDARD OF REVIEW The party seeking to reverse an Indiana Board final determination bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Hatke v. Potter, 173 N.E.3d 728, 729 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2021). … v. O’Connor, 172 N.E.3d 1205, 1206 (Ind. 2021).