{"count":18584,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz05MS42NDYzNCZzPTEwNjIwOTYzJnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMjQmcD0y&q=COUNTY+ASSESSOR+TAXATION+AND+ASSESSMENT&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4084862/prado-partners-v-lane-county-assessor/","attorney":"David E. Carmichael, Eugene, argued the cause for Plaintiff.\n\nBill Weeks, Lane County Assessor, Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation, argued the cause for Defendant.","caseName":"Prado Partners v. Lane County Assessor","caseNameFull":"PRADO PARTNERS, Plaintiff, v. LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant","citation":["17 Or. Tax 466","2003 Ore. Tax LEXIS 173"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4084862,"court":"Oregon Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Or. T.C.","court_id":"ortc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2003-10-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"TC-MD 030536F.","docket_id":3957004,"judge":"Kimsey","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T22:59:09.665488Z","date_created":"2016-07-06T08:12:41.026365Z","score":{"bm25":161.69398}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1192305],"download_url":null,"id":3843925,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"/home/mlissner/columbia/opinions/oregon/tax_court_opinions/documents/a92c5dd18e1b3c62.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T11:03:03.860520Z","date_created":"2016-07-06T08:12:41.033151Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"aedd2fb5ec46795fc54848dd4af6179c703b75e3","snippet":"This matter was set for trial on September 22, 2003. On the morning of trial, Plaintiffs counsel, David *Page 467 \nCarmichael, moved to exclude Defendant's exhibits as not being timely. The court allowed the parties to submit written arguments supporting their positions. The trial was rescheduled to November 4, 2003.\nDefendant hand delivered its exhibits to Plaintiff on Monday, September 15, 2003. A copy of those exhibits was given to a courier on F","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"Oral argument was held by telephone September 22, 2003.","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3843925],"source":"ZU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4084626/lane-county-assessor-v-briggs/","attorney":"Steve Nassett, Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation, argued the cause for Plaintiff.\n\n   Richard A. Briggs, Defendant, argued the cause  pro se.","caseName":"Lane County Assessor v. Briggs","caseNameFull":"LANE COUNTY ASSESSOR, Plaintiff, v. Richard A. BRIGGS, Defendant","citation":["17 Or. Tax 87","2002 Ore. Tax LEXIS 152"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4084626,"court":"Oregon Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Or. T.C.","court_id":"ortc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2002-08-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"TC-MD 020593A.","docket_id":3956768,"judge":"Sideras","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T22:59:06.142591Z","date_created":"2016-07-06T08:12:33.808612Z","score":{"bm25":161.51196}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":3843689,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"/home/mlissner/columbia/opinions/oregon/tax_court_opinions/documents/93c215ff75d9433f.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T11:02:58.050666Z","date_created":"2016-07-06T08:12:33.815439Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"32e8c259f0d45f5298e5fcb01754ea529d754ea9","snippet":"Lane County has appealed an order of the board of property tax appeals (board). The decision of the board was to lower the assessed value, for the 2001-02 tax year, of property owned by Richard A. Briggs and identified by Account 405215.\nLane County was represented by Steve Nassett, of its staff. Briggs presented his case.\nThe property at issue is owned by Briggs, subject to an easement granted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Located on the west side of Greenhill Road ne","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"A telephone trial was held June 5, 2002.","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3843689],"source":"ZU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10928228/mt-pleasant-investments-llc-v-charleston-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"Mt. Pleasant Investments, LLC v. Charleston County Assessor","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10928228,"court":"Court of Appeals of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"scctapp","court_jurisdiction":"SA","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-07-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2025-000239","docket_id":73618572,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-07-15T14:17:13.112860Z","date_created":"2026-07-15T14:17:12.327973Z","score":{"bm25":141.29631}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1255344,1315135,1347589,8292473,9600058],"download_url":"https://www.sccourts.org/media/opinions/HTMLFiles/COA/6153.pdf","id":11395768,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/07/15/mt._pleasant_investments_llc_v._charleston_county_assessor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-07-15T14:17:58.662621Z","date_created":"2026-07-15T14:17:12.341277Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c3405af5cb4a919198763c10b80fe480972e7167","snippet":"                     THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA\n                         In The Court of Appeals\n\n             Mt. Pleasant Investments, LLC, Appellant,\n\n             v.\n\n             Charleston County Assessor, Respondent.\n\n             Appellate Case No. 2025-000239\n\n\n\n                   Appeal From The Administrative Law Court\n                   S. Phillip Lenski, Administrative Law Judge\n\n\n                              Opinion No. 6153\n                    Heard May 14, 2026 – Filed July 15,","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11395768],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"In this property tax valuation dispute, Mt. Pleasant Investments, LLC, appeals the order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC), which affirmed the Charleston County Assessor's valuation of the property at issue. Mt. Pleasant Investments argues the ALC erred in (1) stating the sole disputed issue is the current fair market value of the property for the tax year 2023; (2) unlawfully applying the governing statutes in adding the value of improvements to the 2021 fair market value of the property; (3) finding the improvements to the property are not eligible for the Assessable Transfer of Interest exemption; and (4) finding the value of the improvements to the property would otherwise escape taxation."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7053603/port-of-umatilla-v-umatilla-county-assessor/","attorney":"David Canary, Garvey, Shubert & Barer, Portland, argued the cause for Plaintiff., Shirley Winburn, Assessment Manager, Umatilla County Assessment and Taxation, filed an Answer but did not argue the cause for Defendant Umatilla County Assessor., James Wallace, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Salem, filed an Answer in Intervention and argued the cause for Intervenor-Defendant Department of Revenue.","caseName":"Port of Umatilla v. Umatilla County Assessor","caseNameFull":"PORT OF UMATILLA, HERMISTON FOODS, INC., (Owned by Norpac Foods, Inc.) v. UMATILLA COUNTY ASSESSOR, and DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Intervenor-Defendant PORT OF UMATILLA, HERMISTON FOODS, INC., (Owned by Norpac Foods, Inc.) v. UMATILLA COUNTY ASSESSOR, and DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE","citation":["16 Or. Tax 173","1999 Ore. Tax LEXIS 39"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7053603,"court":"Oregon Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Or. T.C.","court_id":"ortc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1999-11-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"TC-MD 980270; TC-MD 983073A","docket_id":64041939,"judge":"Sideras","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:23:38.993453Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T01:39:28.751974Z","score":{"bm25":128.27414}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6957131,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T06:41:15.741479Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T01:39:28.784545Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nSCOT A. SIDERAS, Presiding Magistrate.\nAt issue is the assessment, for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 tax years, of a Norpac, Inc., facility located in Hermiston and identified by Account Nos. 128251,148052, and 152568.1 The disputed components of value include the buildings, site improvements, machinery, and equipment.2\nPlaintiff was represented by its c","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6957131],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9456394/pamela-slatten-v-hamilton-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"Pamela Slatten v. Hamilton County Assessor","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9456394,"court":"Indiana Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Ind. T.C.","court_id":"indtc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-12-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22T-TA-00004","docket_id":68125781,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:20:59.500536Z","date_created":"2023-12-29T20:03:31.810665Z","score":{"bm25":108.923004}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=66988KItwxco6CZEoQFyYd4MfK-AiZw2Yi6_mdybWHp0e6RwPdts2iInTgdcTPCY0","id":9914219,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/12/29/pamela_slatten_v._hamilton_county_assessor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:11:15.243423Z","date_created":"2023-12-29T20:03:31.841441Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bdf096ff4f9669bdcff467e70b0e558a1e988d7f","snippet":"ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:                      ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:\nJOHN C. SLATTEN                               MARILYN S. MEIGHEN\nATTORNEY AT LAW                               ATTORNEY AT LAW\nIndianapolis, IN                              Carmel, IN\n\n                                              ZACHARY D. PRICE\n                                              ATTORNEY AT LAW\n                                              Indianapolis, IN\n\n\n\n                               IN THE\n              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9914219],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10132159/state-of-wyoming-v-uinta-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of Wyoming v. Uinta County Assessor","caseNameFull":"","citation":["557 P.3d 298","2024 WY 106"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":10132159,"court":"Wyoming Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wyo.","court_id":"wyo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-10-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S-24-0085","docket_id":69238808,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:21:33.559870Z","date_created":"2024-10-09T15:14:00.033601Z","score":{"bm25":106.319145}},"neutralCite":"2024 WY 106","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2263235,9953107,10478800,10494201],"download_url":"https://documents.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions/Uinta%20County%20S-24-0085.pdf","id":10598760,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/10/09/state_of_wyoming_v._uinta_county_assessor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:21:33.609618Z","date_created":"2024-10-09T15:14:00.059629Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"66dc4a67041b3ba09df2d86772fc27cc42524420","snippet":"                IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING\n\n                                            2024 WY 106\n\n                                                                 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2024\n\n                                                                           October 9, 2024\n\n\nSTATE OF WYOMING,\n\nAppellant\n(Petitioner),\n\nv.                                                                      S-24-0085\n\nUINTA COUNTY ASSESSOR,\n\nAppellee\n(Respondent).\n\n                        Appea","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10598760],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9488663/brian-j-shapiro-v-hamilton-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"Brian J. Shapiro v. Hamilton County Assessor","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9488663,"court":"Indiana Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Ind. T.C.","court_id":"indtc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-03-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"22T-TA-00006","docket_id":68383097,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:28:38.227294Z","date_created":"2024-03-27T22:03:57.580079Z","score":{"bm25":102.37947}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1982768,7868023,7868038,7868043,7870980],"download_url":"https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=WywXChGwaIJ_G3C0h3n6I_uCgoKuMLyfZks9UjtPeaxLUprK1f_711DfUZCjCv7O0","id":9955276,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/03/27/brian_j._shapiro_v._hamilton_county_assessor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:33:49.954973Z","date_created":"2024-03-27T22:03:57.581863Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2ac63ac74b1b1df7e2ec2d1365861915c220e0cd","snippet":"ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERS:                      ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT:\nMARGARET L. SMITH                              MARILYN S. MEIGHEN\nFROST BROWN TODD LLP                           ATTORNEY AT LAW\nIndianapolis, IN                               Carmel, IN\n\n\n\n                               IN THE\n                         INDIANA TAX COURT\n\nBRIAN J. SHAPIRO and                             )\nSARAH K. SHAPIRO,                                )\n                                                 )    ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9955276],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9449174/jan-charles-gray-v-converse-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"Jan Charles Gray v. Converse County Assessor","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 WY 116"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9449174,"court":"Wyoming Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wyo.","court_id":"wyo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-12-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S-23-0057","docket_id":68062546,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:19:13.016135Z","date_created":"2023-12-05T17:29:05.327981Z","score":{"bm25":102.211685}},"neutralCite":"2023 WY 116","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1390805,5153149,5156720,6536006,7803147,8210280,9595385,9907943,10465275,10465288,10465307,10465409,10478647,10478674,10478793,10478800],"download_url":"https://documents.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions/Gray%20v.%20Converse%20County%2022-0273%2023-0057.pdf","id":9906999,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/12/05/jan_charles_gray_v._converse_county_assessor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T07:19:47.614725Z","date_created":"2023-12-05T17:29:05.343304Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"adc44111060f58db97928997721d1cea55d8fdb0","snippet":"                  THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING\n\n                                            2023 WY 116\n\n                                                                   OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2023\n\n                                                                          December 5, 2023\n\n JAN CHARLES GRAY,\n\n Appellant\n (Petitioner),\n\n v.\n                                                                   S-22-0273, S-23-0057\n CONVERSE COUNTY ASSESSOR,\n\n Appellee\n (Respondent).\n\n\n\n\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9906999],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9450118/jan-charles-gray-v-converse-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"Jan Charles Gray v. Converse County Assessor","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 WY 116"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9450118,"court":"Wyoming Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Wyo.","court_id":"wyo","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-12-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"S-23-0057","docket_id":68062546,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:19:26.982663Z","date_created":"2023-12-07T16:13:03.963100Z","score":{"bm25":101.73654}},"neutralCite":"2023 WY 116","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1390805,5153149,5156720,6536006,7803147,8210280,9595385,9906999,10465275,10465288,10465307,10465409,10478647,10478674,10478793,10478800],"download_url":"https://documents.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions/Gray%20v.%20Converse%20County%2022-0273%2023-0057.pdf","id":9907943,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/12/05/jan_charles_gray_v._converse_county_assessor_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T08:18:07.705053Z","date_created":"2023-12-07T16:13:03.970071Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4d742f5aa1728c30c28a369ad820a8a99baefe94","snippet":"                  THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING\n\n                                            2023 WY 116\n\n                                                                   OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2023\n\n                                                                          December 5, 2023\n\n JAN CHARLES GRAY,\n\n Appellant\n (Petitioner),\n\n v.\n                                                                   S-22-0273, S-23-0057\n CONVERSE COUNTY ASSESSOR,\n\n Appellee\n (Respondent).\n\n\n\n\n        ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9907943],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10048836/john-e-sparre-v-st-joseph-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"John E. Sparre v. St. Joseph County Assessor","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10048836,"court":"Indiana Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Ind. T.C.","court_id":"indtc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-08-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23T-TA-00018","docket_id":69068077,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-08-22T16:08:59.767697Z","date_created":"2024-08-22T16:08:59.705898Z","score":{"bm25":99.93993}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112171,112315,112763,2026490,2047011,2146433,2228770,7070691],"download_url":"https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=_qobaUzHJE9nB_QlZ3nAJTYsVUslvpRqFJg8UIkrh2TxjIvLLaHoy7fNeFDrlWl10","id":10515436,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/08/22/john_e._sparre_v._st._joseph_county_assessor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:55:26.654818Z","date_created":"2024-08-22T16:08:59.708006Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7785f385786cb9f0942b3a683daaf55d9bd52e2e","snippet":"PETITIONER APPEARING PRO SE:                 ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:\nJOHN E. SPARRE                               THEODORE E. ROKITA\nGranger, IN                                  ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA\n                                             THOMAS L. MARTINDALE\n                                             JONATHAN D. ATWOOD\n                                             DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL\n                                             Indianapolis, IN\n\n\n\n                           ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10515436],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8328233/montgomery-v-spartanburg-county-assessor/","attorney":"Ray Nelson Stevens, Michael Enrico Kozlarek, and Walter Hammond Cartin, all of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, of Columbia; and Virginia M. Dupont, and John Holladay Harris, both of Spartanburg County Attorney’s Office, of Spartanburg, for Appellant., James G. Carpenter and Jennifer J. Miller, both of Carpenter Law Firm, PC, of Greenville; and Lewis Warren Clayton, III, of MSI-Viking Gage, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent.","caseName":"Montgomery v. Spartanburg County Assessor","caseNameFull":"William J. MONTGOMERY v. SPARTANBURG COUNTY ASSESSOR","citation":["419 S.C. 77","795 S.E.2d 866","2016 S.C. App. LEXIS 146"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8328233,"court":"Court of Appeals of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"scctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-11-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Appellate Case No. 2013-002697; Opinion No. 5455","docket_id":65506618,"judge":"Konduros, Lockemy, McDonald","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:26:20.824470Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T11:03:32.493098Z","score":{"bm25":99.4005}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8295984,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:03:42.826527Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T11:03:32.501359Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nLOCKEMY, C.J.:\nIn this action from the Administrative Law Court (ALC), the Spartanburg County Assessor (Assessor) appeals the ALC’s order granting William J. Montgomery’s motion for summary judgment. Assessor argues the ALC erred in its definition of “fair market value for agricultural purposes” in section 12-43-220(d) of the South Carolina Code (2014). We reverse.\nI. FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8295984],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10292479/lake-county-assessor-v-oday-holdings-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Lake County Assessor v. O'Day Holdings, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10292479,"court":"Indiana Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Ind. T.C.","court_id":"indtc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-12-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"23T-TA-00015","docket_id":69462897,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-12-13T01:04:01.387442Z","date_created":"2024-12-12T23:07:40.888926Z","score":{"bm25":99.07566}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1975051,1980018,2053820,2078138,2099444,2099552,2131720,2132802,2255154,2814311,4412687,7868021,7868042],"download_url":"https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=_IfnMmSrw9S47e7bQOr3GV_KawSbVXq4oa2bo-hfcrNB7QHrCQnmN2fJ9T-VxZ7b0","id":10759067,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/12/12/lake_county_assessor_v._oday_holdings_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:54:05.435796Z","date_created":"2024-12-12T23:07:40.890974Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4c6c91c91440bb37da98a0c3b289bbfafe6f4513","snippet":"ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:                       ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT:\nAYN K. ENGLE                                   PAUL M. JONES\nATTORNEY AT LAW                                JONES PYATT LAW, LLC\nIndianapolis, IN                               Greenwood, IN\n\n\n\n                                IN THE\n                          INDIANA TAX COURT\n                                                                                  FILED\nLAKE COUNTY ASSESSOR,                        )                  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10759067],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5302055/missouri-gas-energy-v-grant-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"MISSOURI GAS ENERGY v. GRANT COUNTY ASSESSOR","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2021 OK CIV APP 30"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5302055,"court":"Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla. Civ. App.","court_id":"oklacivapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-01-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":61586684,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:36:43.218352Z","date_created":"2021-12-01T19:14:17.045949Z","score":{"bm25":97.61964}},"neutralCite":"2021 OK CIV APP 30","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1196171,1277377,2511815,2602387,5178120],"download_url":"http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=489730","id":5130617,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2021/01/08/missouri_gas_energy_v._grant_county_assessor_6.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T23:49:27.815124Z","date_created":"2021-12-01T19:14:17.050294Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4c4ea4ff7aad4926cc4f7a323f37457345f62fe8","snippet":" \r\n    \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n        \r\n\r\n        \r\n\t\t\r\n        \t\r\n\t\tMISSOURI GAS ENERGY v. GRANT COUNTY ASSESSOR\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n    \r\n\r\n\t\r\n    \r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\tSkip to Main Content\r\n\t\tAccessibility Statement\r\n\t\r\n\t\r\n\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\t\tHelp\r\n\t\t\t\t\tContact Us\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\t\t\t","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5130617],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10013447/tulsi-sawlani-md-v-lake-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"Tulsi Sawlani, M.D. v. Lake County Assessor","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10013447,"court":"Indiana Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Ind. T.C.","court_id":"indtc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-07-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"21T-TA-00044","docket_id":68975351,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-24T22:05:20.374822Z","date_created":"2024-07-24T22:05:20.318912Z","score":{"bm25":95.5948}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[103553,111833,2006123,2124782,2177005,2397911,3488872,8906014,8906519],"download_url":"https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=lRtBiI-dO3MdQ1WOZ8E-l_5KXrKgwWnr7OZoJHizf7xmBSjdGz_7H17LnKkcU_eQ0","id":10480048,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/24/tulsi_sawlani_m.d._v._lake_county_assessor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T17:39:32.855573Z","date_created":"2024-07-24T22:05:20.323797Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"675807eefad9004a64b33933c15893c85f900a0e","snippet":"ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERS:                      ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:\nGEROLD L. STOUT                                MARILYN S. MEIGHEN\nSTOUT LAW FIRM                                 ATTORNEY AT LAW\nLowell, IN                                     Carmel, IN\n\n                                               BRIAN A. CUSIMANO\n                                               ATTORNEY AT LAW                      FILED\n                                               Indianapolis, IN                Jul 2","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10480048],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8327724/richland-county-assessor-v-hull/","attorney":"Timothy E. Madden, of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville, and Matthew W. Matson, of Augusta, GA, for Appellant., John M.S. Hoefer, of Willoughby & Hoefer, PA, of Columbia, and Malane S. Pike, of White Rock, for Respondent.","caseName":"Richland County Assessor v. Hull","caseNameFull":"RICHLAND COUNTY ASSESSOR v. James M. HULL, d/b/a Hull Storey Gibson Companies, LLC","citation":["408 S.C. 405","759 S.E.2d 745","2014 WL 2807642","2014 S.C. Unpub. LEXIS 20"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8327724,"court":"Supreme Court of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C.","court_id":"sc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-06-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Appellate Case No. 2013-001683; No. 2014-MO-018","docket_id":65506107,"judge":"Griffith, Hearn, Kittredge, Moore, Pleicones","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:26:05.223793Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T11:01:46.113947Z","score":{"bm25":95.19355}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8295432,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:03:35.314362Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T11:01:46.125149Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nThe appellant challenges an administrative law court’s (ALC) order finding the respondent correctly valued the appellant’s land for property tax purposes. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:\n1. Determination of property values: S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp.2013) (“The Court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the [ALC] as to th","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8295432],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9507237/convention-headquarters-hotels-llc-v-marion-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"Convention Headquarters Hotels LLC v. Marion County Assessor","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9507237,"court":"Indiana Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Ind. T.C.","court_id":"indtc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-05-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19T-TA-00021","docket_id":68565095,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:33:08.716432Z","date_created":"2024-05-24T22:02:55.490284Z","score":{"bm25":95.18302}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2132802,2200671,3198758,3200489,3210090,4362380],"download_url":"https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=0aKgGKg46VjphmbYagdHNkq1vbWTaEwffKnkS9m-6N92MoPT1JinECHDq9QLJdp-0","id":9973850,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/05/24/convention_headquarters_hotels_llc_v._marion_county_assessor.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:35:10.451241Z","date_created":"2024-05-24T22:02:55.500752Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c8326fda7342d91cba7cfbfba500bafe79dd4ea8","snippet":"ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER:                      ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:\nBENJAMIN A. BLAIR                              JESSICA R. GASTINEAU\nDAVID A. SUESS                                 JOHN P. LOWREY\nDANIEL R. ROY                                  OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL\nFAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &                        Indianapolis, IN\nREATH LLP\nIndianapolis, IN                               RAYMOND J. BIEDERMAN\n                                               SEAN P. BURKE\n                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9973850],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8328237/mead-v-beaufort-county-assessor/","attorney":"Stephen P. Hughes and James Andrew Yoho, both of Howell Gibson & Hughes, PA, of Beaufort, for Appellant., Burnet Rhett Maybank, III and James Peter Rourke, both of Nexsen Pruet, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.","caseName":"Mead v. Beaufort County Assessor","caseNameFull":"Frank R. MEAD, III v. BEAUFORT COUNTY ASSESSOR","citation":["419 S.C. 125","796 S.E.2d 165","2016 S.C. App. LEXIS 158"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":8328237,"court":"Court of Appeals of South Carolina","court_citation_string":"S.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"scctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-12-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Appellate Case No. 2014-002355; Opinion No. 5460","docket_id":65506622,"judge":"Geathers, Huff, Konduros","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T18:26:21.015896Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T11:03:32.952196Z","score":{"bm25":94.650055}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8295990,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T16:00:11.009221Z","date_created":"2022-10-17T11:03:32.961988Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nKONDUROS, J.:\nIn this appeal from the administrative law court (ALC), the Beaufort County Assessor appeals the ALC’s reversal of the Assessor’s determination Frank Mead, III was not eligible for the homestead exemption in 2011 because for over fourteen days that year he rented out the home he owned. The Assessor contends the ALC erred in finding the primary residence classification and homestead exemption are unrelated. We aff","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8295990],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5329597/sizemore-v-cleveland-county-assessor/","attorney":"Larry Sizemore, Inc. P.C., Oklahoma City, for appellants., J. Tully McCoy, Dist. Atty. for the 21st Judicial District, Norman, for appellees.","caseName":"Sizemore v. Cleveland County Assessor","caseNameFull":"Lawrence E. SIZEMORE and Louise Sizemore v. CLEVELAND COUNTY ASSESSOR and Cleveland County Board of Equalization","citation":["690 P.2d 1054","1984 OK 78","1984 Okla. LEXIS 155"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5329597,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1984-11-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 59229","docket_id":61670775,"judge":"Kauger","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:43:44.666097Z","date_created":"2022-01-02T02:38:23.023101Z","score":{"bm25":93.54203}},"neutralCite":"1984 OK 78","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5159983,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"oklahoma/court_opinions/documents/4926ec5221c902c7.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T17:07:50.092767Z","date_created":"2022-01-02T02:38:23.035381Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n[1] The dispositive question presented is whether a partially constructed office building may be classified, and ad valorem taxes assessed at the rate of its intended *Page 1055 \nuse, as an improvement to real property even if a certificate of occupancy has not been issued by the city where the property is located. We answer in the affirmative.\n[2] The appellants, Lawrence E. and Louise M. Sizemore, owned a building in Cleveland County which","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"Appeal from the District Court of Cleveland County; Preston Trimble, Trial Judge. The Cleveland County Tax Assessor and the Cleveland County Board of Equalization assessed ad valorem taxes on appellants' partially constructed office building. The appellants appealed the assessment to the district court and it sustained the finding that incomplete commercial structures are not exempt from taxation. Okla. Const. art. 10 § 8; 68 O.S. 1981 § 2404[ 68-2404 ], 68 O.S. 1981 § 2427[ 68-2427 ] (b)(2)(d). AFFIRMED.","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5159983],"source":"ZU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4772532/bartholomew-county-assessor-v-housing-partnerships-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Bartholomew County Assessor v. Housing Partnerships, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4772532,"court":"Indiana Tax Court","court_citation_string":"Ind. T.C.","court_id":"indtc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-08-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"18T-TA-21","docket_id":17409893,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:20:03.704242Z","date_created":"2020-08-03T20:03:42.817569Z","score":{"bm25":93.16479}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2142282,2200671],"download_url":"http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08032001mbw.pdf","id":4552879,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/08/03/bartholomew_county_assessor_v._housing_partnerships_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:11:55.061700Z","date_created":"2020-08-03T20:03:42.820803Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d8fbd94122af52bea6480d4b9eac4642cd2a06a0","snippet":"ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER:                        ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:\nMARILYN S. MEIGHEN                               MICHAEL N. RED\nATTORNEY AT LAW                                  REBEKAH L. PHILLIPS\nCarmel, IN                                       MORSE & BICKEL, P.C.\n                                                 Indianapolis, IN\nBRIAN A. CUSIMANO\nATTORNEY AT LAW\nIndianapolis, IN\n\n                                                                                   FILED\n               ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4552879],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10620963/the-icon-at-norman-apts-lp-v-douglas-warr-cleveland-county-assessor/","attorney":"","caseName":"THE ICON AT NORMAN APTS, LP v. DOUGLAS WARR, CLEVELAND COUNTY ASSESSOR","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 OK 42"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10620963,"court":"Supreme Court of Oklahoma","court_citation_string":"Okla.","court_id":"okla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-06-17","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"122099","docket_id":70683184,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-01T15:13:49.939335Z","date_created":"2025-07-01T15:13:49.837588Z","score":{"bm25":91.64634}},"neutralCite":"2025 OK 42","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[716799,1391274,2602356,3151755,3815456,3817293,4202743,5156813,9949847],"download_url":"https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=548589","id":11087551,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/06/17/the_icon_at_norman_apts_lp_v._douglas_warr_cleveland_county_assessor.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T21:18:35.339107Z","date_created":"2025-07-01T15:13:49.848572Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"18730506060375729c1f956fc3e5f5f7a7ac83e6","snippet":"\n\t\tOSCN Found Document:THE ICON AT NORMAN APTS, LP v. DOUGLAS WARR, CLEVELAND COUNTY ASSESSOR\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\n  \n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPrevious Case\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tTop Of Index\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tThis Point in Index\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCitationize\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\tNext Case","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11087551],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"¶0 Taxpayer, a limited partnership and the owner of a parcel of real property with apartment buildings, appeals the decision of the Oklahoma Court of Tax Review determining that a transfer of partnership interests was legally the same as title to the property being transferred, changed or conveyed to another person and thereby lifting the five percent (5%) limitation on increasing the fair cash value of the property for ad valorem taxation pursuant to Okla. Const. art. 10, §8B."}]}