Case law

Hi-Temp, Inc. of Decatur County v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

645 N.E.2d 680 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 9, 1995

Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs (1994), Ind.Tax, 629 N.E.2d 959, 961 . Moreover, “[t]he State Board is accorded great deference when acting within the scope of its authority.” Wirth v. … Hi-Temp also insists that the case of State Board of Tax Commissioners v.

350 East 62nd Street Associates v. Vecilla

182 Misc. 2d 68 · Civil Court of the City of New York · Oct 4, 1999

The appellate courts have addressed this problem in Ram I v Stuart ( 248 AD2d 255 [1st Dept 1998]), Giddings v Waterside Redevelopment Co. … (NYLJ, June 30, 1998, at 26, col 1 [App Term, 1st Dept]), Ariel Assocs. v Brown (NYLJ, Apr. 14, 1999, at 26, col 2 [App Term, 1st Dept]), as well as El-Kam Realty Co. v Epstein ( 148 Misc 2d 835 [App Term, 1st Dept 1990])

Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

740 N.E.2d 598 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 25, 2000

ANALYSIS AND OPINION Standard of Review The Court gives great deference to the State Board's final determinations when the State Board acts within the scope of its authority. Wetzel Enters., Inc. v. … The Court notes that where a taxpayer petitions the State Board for a review of an. assessment, the State Board may limit its inquiry to only those errors raised by the taxpayer. Whitley Prods. v.

Trapier v. Banister

1 Rec. V.A. Ct. (R.I.) 502 · Rhode Island Vice Admiralty Court · Jul 1, 1749

In a libel for wages on board the Settee Eagle James Brown master Having heard the Libel of the sa Alexander Trapier and also the Plea of the sa John Banister, together with all the allegations, Answers, and Evidences on … Money paid for him to a Doctor in his Sickness, (which last Deduction has been fully prov’d to have been along and Constant Custom of this Port) there is due to the sa Alexander Trapier for the remainder of his wages on board

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Dec 26, 1963

OPINION — AG — IN CONSIDERATION OF 68 O.S. 1961 224 [ 68-224 ] ESPECIALLY THE UNDERSCORED PROVISIONS THEREOF, AND THE RULE ANNOUNCED IN THE BROWN CASE, THE AG IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OTTAWA … (AD VALOREM TAXES ON REAL PROPERTY), WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THE APPLICABLE PROVISION OF ARTICLE V, SECTION 50 AND ARTICLE X , SECTION 6 OF OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION AND THE GENERAL RULE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Opinion No. 69-205 (1996) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 20, 1969

If a majority of the board of control shall vote in favor of the establishment of a salary account, then a depository bank, approved for the deposit of state and county funds, shall be designated by the board and the necessary … See Brown v. State Election Board, Okl., 369 P.2d 140 (1962). The foregoing all considered, it is the opinion of the Attorney General that county hospital employees may be paid only on a monthly basis.

Coachmen Vans v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

639 N.E.2d 1066 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 7, 1994

USAir v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (1993), Ind.Tax, 623 N.E.2d 466, 470 (citing Monarch Steel Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs (1993), Ind.Tax, 611 N.E.2d 708, 713 ) (emphasis added). … Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (1992), Ind.Tax, 605 N.E.2d 1222, 1225 (citing Caylor-Nickel Clinic, P.C. v.

In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Stone

1 Gibb. Surr. 461 · New York Surrogate's Court · Dec 15, 1895

Galen v. Brown, 22 N. Y. 37 ; Tillotson v. Race, id. 126 ; Abb. Tr. Ev. 130, note; Matter of Hastings, 6 Dem. 307 . … Vernon v. Vernon, 53 N. Y. 351 ; Lamb v. Lamb, 131 id. 227.

Desdemona Independent School Dist. v. Howard

34 S.W.2d 840 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Jan 21, 1931

Tom Green County v. Moody, etc., 116 Tex. 299 , 289 S. W. 381 ; Anderson County, etc., v. Pollard, etc., 116 Tex. 647 , 296 S. W. 1062 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Wichita County Water Improvement District (Tex. Com. … We also here refer to the case of Brown v. Truscott Independent School District, 34 S. W. (2d) 837 , this day decided by this Section of the Commission.

Opinion No. 80-047 (1980) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jul 11, 1980

See Adolph Coors Co. v. Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Okl. 584 P.2d 717 (1978), Semke v. State ex rel. … See Lamb v. Brown, Okl. 456 P.2d 18 (1972) and State v. Dist. Ct. of Mayes County, Okl. 440 P.2d 700 (1968).

Wittenberg Lutheran Village Endowment Corp. v. Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

782 N.E.2d 483 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 24, 2003

STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court gives great deference to final determinations of the Indiana Board when it acts within the seope of its authority. Miller Village Prop. Co., LLP v. … See also Dana Corp. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 694 N.E.2d 1244, 1246 (Ind. Tax Ct.1998). Cross motions for summary judgment do not alter this standard. Salin Bancshares v.

Opinion No. 71-419 (1971) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 19, 1971

In the case of Brown v. … In the case of Ramsey v.

Mariah Foods LP v. Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners

749 N.E.2d 646 · Indiana Tax Court · May 2, 2001

Palacios v. Kline, 566 N.E.2d 573, 575 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). … Dawkins v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 659 N.E.2d 706, 709 (Ind.Tax Ct.1995). See also State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v.

Grant v. N.C. Dept. of Correction

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jun 18, 2001

Brown filed a report stating that plaintiff did not make an adequate assessment of Mr. … Brown recommended that plaintiff be terminated. Plaintiffs employment was therefore terminated in February 1998. 7. Dr.

Morgan, Angela v. DRS Product Returns

2016 TN WC 102 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · May 5, 2016

Brown did not provide a doctor's note for her absences from September 30, 2014, through October 3, 2014, DRS did not excuse the absences. (See generally Exs. 2 and 6.) On October 7, 2014, Ms. Brown called Ms. … See Jones v. Crencor Leasing and Sales, No. 2015-06-0332, 2015 TN Wrk. Gomp. App. Bd. LEXIS 48, at *7 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Dec. 11, 2015) (citing Simpson v. Satterfield, 564 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tenn. 1978)).

North Group, Inc. v. Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners

745 N.E.2d 938 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 9, 2001

ANALYSIS AND OPINION Standard of Review This Court gives final determinations of the State Board great deference when the State Board acts within the scope of its authority. Freudemberg-NOK General Partnership v. … In addition, a taxpayer challenging the validity of the State Board's final determination bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the final determination. Clark v.

Board of School Trustees of Young County v. Bullock Common School Dist. No. 12

55 S.W.2d 538 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Dec 22, 1932

McMeans v. Finley, 88 Tex. 515 , 82 S. W. 524 ; Morris v. Gussett, 62 Tex. 728 . … State Line Consolidated School District v. Farwell Independent School District (Tex. Com. App.) 48 S.W.(2d) 616 .

Opinion No. (1979) Ag

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Nov 1, 1979

As stated in McVicker v. … See also, Wade v. Brown, 516 P.2d 526 , 528 (Okl. 1973); Jones v. State, 542 P.2d 1316 , 1333 (Okl.Cr. 1975). Therefore, it is the official opinion of the Attorney General that your question be answered in the negative.

Southworth v. Grant County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

791 N.E.2d 862 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 10, 2003

ANALYSIS AND OPINION Standard of Review This Court gives great deference to final determinations of the Indiana Board when it acts within the scope of its authority. Wittenberg Lutheran Vill. Endowment Corp. v. … Southworth also argues that this Court’s holding in Barth, Inc. v.

Opinion No.

Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 28, 1956

OPINION — AG — ** CONTRACT — TEACHER — ENSUING YEAR ** (1) THE PRIMARY RULE OF A STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION THAT REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED (BROWN V. … BOARD OF EDUCATION, 126 P.2d 241 ), THE AG IS OF THE OPINION THE THE PROVISIONS OF 70 O.S. 8 -6 [70-8-6] WERE NOT REPEALED BY IMPLICATION OF SAID CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. (2) SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 51 IS LIABLE TO THE TEACHER