Case law

Opinion No. (2003)

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 20, 2003

As was noted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Irwin v. … , subject to Board approval. . . .

Angelini v. Township of Upper Freehold

8 N.J. Tax 644 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 13, 1987

In Belmont v. … In Burlington Tp. v.

Riensche v. Department of Revenue

8 Or. Tax 304 · Oregon Tax Court · Mar 20, 1980

As this court noted in Starker v. … See Cook v. Michael, 214 Or 513, 525-528 , 330 P2d 1026 (1958); Stattes el al v. U. S, 63-2 USTC ¶9755 , 12 AFTR2d 5757 (SD WVa 1963).

Commercial Casualty Insurance v. City of Newark

18 N.J. Misc. 233 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 2, 1940

Second National Bank, Red Bank v. State Board of Tax Appeals (Supreme Court, 1935), 114 N. J. L. 573; 178 Atl. Rep. 96 ; and see General Motors Corp. v. State Board of Tax Appeals (Supreme Court, Feb. 23d, 1940), 124 N. … Second National Bank v. State Board, 114 N. J. L. 573.” And eases therein cited.

Opinion No. Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 17, 1949

** CANCELLATION OF TAXES — COURT — JUDGMENT — ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT — AD VALOREM ** UNDER A 1916 STATUTE AUTHORIZING BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO CORRECT ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENTS, WHICH STATUTE APPEARED IN THE OKLAHOMA STATUTES … BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF NOBLE COUNTY, 91 P. 1125 " AND APPLIED IN "MILAN V. SMITH-MAUER BROTHERS, 133 P. 33 ".

Opinion No. 77-254 (1977) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 1, 1977

Const., Article V , Section 36 . Article V, Section 36 has been interpreted as a limitation upon the power of the Legislature rather than a grant of power. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma, in Spearman v. … Otjen v. Mayhue, 476 P.2d 317 (Okl. 1970).

Department of Education v. Gardener

7 Fla. Supp. 2d 165 · State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings · Oct 23, 1984

See, Davis v. Board of Real Estate, Case No. 80-4023 (Recommended Order filed May 8, 1981). … See, Laney v. Holbrook, 8 So.2d 465, 486 (Fla. 1942); Negrich v. Dade County Board of Public Instruction, 143 So.2d 498 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1962).

Opinion No. 74-227 (1975) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 10, 1975

Barton v. Derryberry, 500 P.2d 281 (Okl., 1972); Bass v. Board of Commissioners of Lincoln County, 222 P. 995 (Okl., 1924); Attorney General Opinion No. 74-180; Attorney General Opinion No. 65-294. … of Commissioners of Delaware County v.

Navyac, Laury v. Universal Health Services

2016 TN WC App. 16 · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Mar 31, 2016

F r example, in Hubble v. … (emphasis added); Orman v.

Kingsdown, Inc. v. Hinshaw

2016 NCBC 16 · North Carolina Business Court · Feb 17, 2016

At the hearing, counsel for Kingsdown indicated a willingness to consult with Kingsdown’s Board as to whether the Board had, in its view, made a final determination as to Mr. Hinshaw’s and Ms. … Jarman v.

Opinion No. 75-340 (1976) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 16, 1976

Use of the word "shall" is equivalent to the word "must" and leaves the Board no discretion to avoid following this statute. State v. Jennings, Okl., 463 P.2d 690 , 692 (1970); Ogden v. … In Marcus v.

Liftchild v. State

180 Misc. 292 · New York Court of Claims · Apr 7, 1943

Act, § 1377; Matter of Brown, 131 Misc. 420 .) … Act, § 441; Levine v. Charlow, 254 App. Div. 416, 417 ; Dillon v. Cortland Baking Co., 224 App. Div. 303 ; Kagen v. Avallone, 243 App. Div. 437 ; Ring & Son v. Winola Worsted Yarn Co., 228 N. Y. 127 .)

Hawes, James v. McLane Company, Inc.

2021 TN WC App. 72 · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Aug 25, 2021

Madden v. Holland Grp. of Tenn., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 896, 898 (Tenn. 2009). However, a trial court’s findings based upon documentary evidence is reviewed do novo with no presumption of correctness. Goodman v. … See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013).

Community Natural Gas Co. v. Henley

24 S.W.2d 10 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Feb 12, 1930

Co. v. Shoemaker, 98 Tex. 451 , 84 S. W. 1049 ; Harris v. Ry. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 283 S. W. 895 ; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.) 161 S. W. 932 ; Atchison, T. S. & P. R. Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. … In discussing the principle here enunciated Justice Brown said: “The fact that Armour & Co.’s servants were at work near the track cannot furnish a basis for a presumption that they placed the pipe on the track.

Wright. Rashard v. April Crowder, d/b/a Mr. P's Buffalo Wings Plus

2021 TN WC 247 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Dec 6, 2021

See, e.g., Ducros v. Metro Roofing and Metal Supply Co., Inc., TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. … The Workers’ Compensation Judge must approve the statement before the record is submitted to the Appeals Board.

Geauga Cty. Pros. Office v. Munson Fire Dept.

2023 Ohio 4437 · Ohio Court of Claims · Nov 28, 2023

See Kish v. … Board of Trustees.

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 9, 1976

in which such child resides, under rules and regulations approved by the State Board of Education; provided, however, that the eligibility of exceptional children shall be reevaluated at least once every three (3) years. … In this regard see Sebring v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 401 P.2d 479 , and other cases cited at 13 Okla. Digest, page 503, et seq.

Morris, Damon Curry v. Select Services

2025 TN WC App. 35 · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Aug 19, 2025

TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Damon Curry Morris Docket No. 2022-08-1069 v. … See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013).

Opinion No. (1979) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 20, 1979

Wright v. State, 192 Okl. 493 , 137 P.2d 796 (1943). When determining the application of a law, primary considerations should be given to the plain ordinary meaning of the words. … In Re: Certification of Questions of State Law, 560 P.2d 195 (Okl. 1977); Ridley Packaging Co. v. Holliday, 467 P.2d 480 (Okl. 1970).

Crumble, Mae v. Express Services

2016 TN WC 265 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Nov 8, 2016

Appeals Board Opinion The Appeals Board addressed two issues: first, Express’ contention that this Court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard in addressing medical causation. … In addressing these issues, the Board first noted that this Court primarily focused upon the standard set forth in McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, No. 2014-06- 0063, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.