{"count":649,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz03LjAzNDU4NDUmcz04NzU0OTU3JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDktMjgmcD0y&q=RAILROAD+ROLLING+STOCK+AND+FIXTURES&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/613896/dakota-minnesota-eastern-railroad-v-wisconsin-southern-railroad/","attorney":"James D. Helenhouse (argued), Attorney, Fletcher & Sippel, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Colleen E. Fielkow (argued), Attorney, Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellee.","caseName":"Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad v. Wisconsin & Southern Railroad","caseNameFull":"DAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WISCONSIN & SOUTHERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee","citation":["657 F.3d 615","2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19282","2011 WL 4375636"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":613896,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2011-09-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"10-3177","docket_id":1913899,"judge":"Bauer, Posner, Manion","lexisCite":"2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19282","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T22:56:37.933656Z","date_created":"2014-12-22T12:44:26.791297Z","score":{"bm25":23.947163}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[93225,199616,274835,422270,439119,471683,545180,670581,692000,733256,776932,782433,784566,788762,1028244,1305619,1604717,1675489,1816870,1877286,3611498],"download_url":"http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=10-3177_002.pdf","id":613896,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2011/09/20/Dakota_Minnesota__v._Wisconsin_.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:26:16.808785Z","date_created":"2011-09-20T14:26:34Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"260fc57afcc741e9454265ad6c115513e50b5de6","snippet":"\n657 F.3d 615 (2011)\nDAKOTA, MINNESOTA & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,\nv.\nWISCONSIN & SOUTHERN RAILROAD CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 10-3177.\nUnited States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.\nArgued June 2, 2011.\nDecided September 20, 2011.\n*616 James D. Helenhouse (argued), Att","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[210,2027,2606],"panel_names":["William Joseph Bauer","Daniel Anthony Manion","Richard Allen Posner"],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[613896],"source":"LCU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2417439/illinois-central-railroad-v-fordice/","attorney":"Charles T. Ozier, Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway, Jackson, MS, for Illinois Central Railroad Company, plaintiff., Alan K. Sudduth, Brown & Watt, Pasca-goula, MS, for CSX Transportation, Inc., in-tervenor-plaintiff., Rickey T. Moore, Office of the Attorney General, Jackson, MS, for Kirk Fordice, Mike Moore, defendants., Wilburn Hyche, Rainer & Hyche, Brandon, MS, for Rankin County, Mississippi, Ken Dickerson, defendants., John G. Wheeler, William Collins Spencer, Mitchell, McNutt, Threadgill, Smith & Sams, Tupelo, MS, for Burlington Northern Railroad Company, intervenor-plaintiff., Stuart G, Kruger, Watkins, Ludlam & Stennis, Jackson, MS, for The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, intervenor-plaintiff.","caseName":"Illinois Central Railroad v. Fordice","caseNameFull":"ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Kirk FORDICE, Governor of the State of Mississippi in His Official Capacity, Et Al., Defendants","citation":["30 F. Supp. 2d 945","1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23150","1997 WL 1052046"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":2417439,"court":"District Court, S.D. Mississippi","court_citation_string":"S.D. Miss.","court_id":"mssd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1997-09-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"3:96-cv-00486","docket_id":2289589,"judge":"Wingate","lexisCite":"1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23150","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:30:09.393678Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T23:10:31.504001Z","score":{"bm25":14.865643}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":3513,"cites":[96819,97365,102656,103012,104425,107964,108985,109087,109338,109525,109628,109703,110599,110673,110916,111437,111672,111985,112348,112418,112747,112846,118011,422316,670705,717482,1094583,1103091,1109815,1490886,1674235,1713016,1781155,1796738,1841904,1930151],"download_url":null,"id":2417439,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:24:57.458247Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:27:07.523058Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f3537e598c957cdc0d44a5c8805d00c22bcafd35","snippet":"\n30 F.Supp.2d 945 (1997)\nILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff,\nv.\nKirk FORDICE, Governor of the State of Mississippi in His Official Capacity, et al., Defendants.\nNo. Civ.A.3:96-CV-486WS.\nUnited States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.\nSeptember 30, 1997.\n*946 *947 Cha","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2417439],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8705632/burlington-northern-railroad-v-james/","attorney":"James W. McBride, Laughlin, Halle, Big-son & McBride, Washington, D.C., Stephen D. Goodwin, Laughlin, Halle, Bigson & McBride, Memphis, Tenn., and Megan Ricke, Thomas W. Spence Law Firm, St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff., Barry R. Greller and Thomas O’Hern, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Paul, Minn., for defendant., John W. Windhorst, Jr., and William R. Goetz, Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, Minn., for Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Railway Co., amicus curiae.","caseName":"Burlington Northern Railroad v. James","caseNameFull":"BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD CO. v. John JAMES, Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota","citation":["725 F. Supp. 1058","1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9367"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8705632,"court":"District Court, D. Minnesota","court_citation_string":"D. Minnesota","court_id":"mnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1989-08-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil No. 4-88-362","docket_id":65971533,"judge":"Rosenbaum","lexisCite":"1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9367","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:03:06.328993Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T02:58:22.437528Z","score":{"bm25":12.432901}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8688816,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T18:21:20.655219Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T02:58:22.444725Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nORDER\nROSENBAUM, District Judge.\n\nIntroduction\n\nPlaintiff, the Burlington Northern Railroad Company (BN), challenges the 1987 ad valorem tax assessed by defendant John James, Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota (Commissioner). BN contends the method by which the assessed value of its railroad operating property was computed effectively imposed a tax on a port","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8688816],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7114406/letourneau-railroad-services-inc-v-department-of-revenue/","attorney":"John L. Swartz, of Giffin, Winning, Lindner, Cohen & Bodewes, P.C., of Springfield, for appellant., Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Jill Wine-Banks, Solicitor General, and Rita M. Novak, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.","caseName":"LeTourneau Railroad Services, Inc. v. Department of Revenue","caseNameFull":"LeTOURNEAU RAILROAD SERVICES, INC. v. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE","citation":["134 Ill. App. 3d 638","481 N.E.2d 864","90 Ill. Dec. 64","1985 Ill. App. LEXIS 2151"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7114406,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1985-07-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 4-84-0854","docket_id":64102761,"judge":"Trapp","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:41:15.402671Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T04:44:01.587754Z","score":{"bm25":12.087512}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7021068,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T10:00:34.820243Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T04:44:01.593789Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":" JUSTICE TRAPP delivered the opinion of the court: LeTourneau Railroad Services, Inc., plaintiff, filed claims for the refund of taxes paid pursuant to the Retailers’ Occupation Tax Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 120, par. 440 et seq.) and Municipal Retailers’ Occupation Tax Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 24, par. 8 — 11—1 et seq.). The refund was sought on the theory that the","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7021068],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/87971/railroad-co-v-james/","attorney":"\nMessrs. Gushing and Stark, for the appellants; Messrs. Cary and Carlisle, contra.\n","caseName":"Railroad Co. v. James","caseNameFull":"Railroad Company v. James","citation":["73 U.S. 750","18 L. Ed. 854","6 Wall. 750","1867 U.S. LEXIS 1022"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":87971,"court":"Supreme Court of the United States","court_citation_string":"SCOTUS","court_id":"scotus","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1868-03-16","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":2519027,"judge":"Nelson","lexisCite":"1867 U.S. LEXIS 1022","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T18:07:11.502870Z","date_created":"2014-12-21T09:25:48.651384Z","score":{"bm25":11.194081}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":2388,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":87971,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T19:00:21.446470Z","date_created":"2010-04-28T16:01:28Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"134cc441392cc980850e62c506c0948b1ba86f30","snippet":"\n73 U.S. 750 (____)\n6 Wall. 750\nRAILROAD COMPANY\nv.\nJAMES.\nSupreme Court of United States.\n\n*751 Messrs. Cushing and Stark, for the appellants; Messrs. Cary and Carlisle, contra.\nMr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.\nThe La Crosse and Milwaukee Company, by virtue of its charter and the proceed","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"1867-062","sibling_ids":[87971],"source":"LRU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"<p>In Wisconsin, a judgment is a lien from the time it is rendered, upon a railroad, and upon the rolling stock, which is a fixture by statute; and upon a hill in equity a decree for a sale to satisfy the judgment passed title to the purchaser.</p>"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7212439/security-benefit-life-insurance-v-fleming-companies-inc/","attorney":"Mark W. McKinzie and John M. Ross, of Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown, and Enochs, Chartered, of Overland Park, for appellant/cross-appellee., Henry J. Schulteis, of Topeka, for appellee/cross-appellant Fleming Companies, Inc., Norman R. Kelly and Robert A. Martin, of Norton, Wasserman, Jones & Kelly, of Salma, for appellee/cross-appellant Colby, Inc.","caseName":"Security Benefit Life Insurance v. Fleming Companies, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Security Benefit Life Insurance Corporation v. Fleming Companies, Inc., Appellee/Cross-Appellant Data Systems, Inc., d/b/a Retail Data Systems of Topeka, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Colby Foods, Inc., Appellee/Cross-Appellant","citation":["21 Kan. App. 2d 833","908 P.2d 1315","30 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 676","1995 Kan. App. LEXIS 179"],"citeCount":19,"cluster_id":7212439,"court":"Court of Appeals of Kansas","court_citation_string":"Kan. Ct. App.","court_id":"kanctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1995-12-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 72,869","docket_id":64200810,"judge":"Elliott, Marquardt, Prager","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:08:24.829848Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T12:59:07.957230Z","score":{"bm25":11.074773}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7124268,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T10:39:55.697787Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T12:59:07.968861Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMarquardt, J.:\nRetail Data Systems, Inc., d/b/a Retail Data Systems of Topeka (RDS), appeals the district court’s summary judgment ruling that RDS’s lien, filed pursuant to K.S.A. 58-201, was limited in recovery to a portion of the amount claimed for services and equipment it provided to Larry’s I.G.A., Inc., (Larry’s I.G.A.). RDS appeals. Fleming Companies, Inc., (Fleming) and Colby Foods, Inc., (Colby Foods) cross-appeal, argui","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7124268],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1436960/burlington-northern-railroad-v-department-of-revenue/","attorney":"John S. Best of Michael, Best & Friedrich, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs., John J. Glinski, Asst. Atty. Gen. of State of Wis., Department of Justice, Madison, Wis., for defendant.","caseName":"Burlington Northern Railroad v. Department of Revenue","caseNameFull":"BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD CO., Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., Green Bay & Western Railroad Co., Soo Line Railroad Co., and Richard B. Ogilvie, Trustee of the Property of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., Debtor, Plaintiffs, v. the DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF the STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendant","citation":["570 F. Supp. 585","1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14110"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":1436960,"court":"District Court, W.D. Wisconsin","court_citation_string":"W.D. Wis.","court_id":"wiwd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1983-09-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"81-C-772","docket_id":913560,"judge":"James E. Doyle","lexisCite":"1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14110","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T03:52:38.518730Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T13:06:06.127775Z","score":{"bm25":10.117977}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":911,"cites":[110749,1429835,1581008],"download_url":null,"id":1436960,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T08:24:47.389379Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:09:38.165766Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"56fc5d9bf88027da34dafa68f9e6f1d44dce1e8e","snippet":"\n570 F.Supp. 585 (1983)\nBURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD CO., Chicago & North Western Transportation Co., Green Bay & Western Railroad Co., Soo Line Railroad Co., and Richard B. Ogilvie, Trustee of the Property of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Co., Debtor, Plaintiffs,\nv.\nThe DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF the STATE OF WISCONSIN, Defendant.\nNo. 81-C-772.\nUnited States District Court, ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1436960],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2449359/missouri-kansas-texas-railroad-v-city-of-dallas/","attorney":"Worsham, Forsythe & Sampels, Jos. Irion Worsham, M. D. Sampels and Michael R. Johnson, Dallas, for petitioner., Lee E. Holt, City Atty., Carroll R. Graham and Linda Lawson, Asst. City Attys., Dallas, for respondent.","caseName":"Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. City of Dallas","caseNameFull":"MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Dallas I.S.D. Et Al., Respondents","citation":["623 S.W.2d 296","1981 Tex. LEXIS 374"],"citeCount":76,"cluster_id":2449359,"court":"Texas Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Tex.","court_id":"tex","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1981-10-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"B-9222","docket_id":2321628,"judge":"Pope","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T11:48:06.444114Z","date_created":"2015-09-17T02:41:31.653392Z","score":{"bm25":9.895015}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":5829,"cites":[93787,100278,102314,102590,1087842,1273488,1484823,1486655,1522520,1571353,1629226,1632494,1784749,2018700,2426242,3907496,3916584,3934107,3941768,3948172,3963570,3967419,3980951],"download_url":null,"id":2449359,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T19:45:04.893173Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T09:38:19.334666Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d20cc706863c64f8598ef06b96765cd7b3619098","snippet":"\n623 S.W.2d 296 (1981)\nMISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner,\nv.\nCITY OF DALLAS, Dallas I.S.D. et al., Respondents.\nNo. B-9222.\nSupreme Court of Texas.\nOctober 21, 1981.\nRehearing Denied November 25, 1981.\nWorsham, Forsythe & Sampels, Jos. Irion Worsham, M. D. Sampels and Michael R. Johnson, Dallas, for petitioner.\nLee E. Holt","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2449359],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4474546/brent-regan-v-jeff-owen/","attorney":"Macomber Law, PLLC, Coeur d'Alene, for appellants. Arthur B. Macomber argued., James, Vernon & Weeks, PA, Coeur d'Alene, for respondents. Susan P. Weeks argued.","caseName":"Brent Regan v. Jeff Owen","caseNameFull":"Brent REGAN and Moura Regan, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jeff D. OWEN and Karen A. Owen, Husband and Wife, Defendants-Respondents.","citation":["413 P.3d 759"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":4474546,"court":"Idaho Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Idaho","court_id":"idaho","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-03-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Docket 43848","docket_id":6324280,"judge":"Brody, Horton","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:55:26.595693Z","date_created":"2018-03-05T19:10:34.687932Z","score":{"bm25":9.665245}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9880487,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T08:14:16.955377Z","date_created":"2023-09-27T19:19:26.524122Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nBRODY, Justice.\n*761This case addresses whether the issuance of a tax deed extinguishes a prescriptive easement across a parcel of land by operation of former Idaho Code section 63-1009. The Owens purchased a small parcel of land (\"the Orphan Parcel\") from Kootenai County after a tax sale. A dispute arose as to whether the Regans had the right ","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[229744,877011,1192464,1209375,2513893,2521014,2636797,3409078,5174590],"download_url":"http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/REGANvOWEN.pdf","id":4251799,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/03/05/brent_regan_v._jeff_owen.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:43:01.689014Z","date_created":"2018-03-05T19:10:34.694593Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"441d6081825d7850546eac1e57ee74627f38da3e","snippet":"                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO\n\n                                       Docket No. 43848\n\nBRENT REGAN and MOURA REGAN,            )\nhusband and wife,                       )\n                                        )\n                                                             Boise, December 2017 Term\n      Plaintiffs-Appellants,            )\n                                        )\n                                                             2018 Opinion No. 19\nv.   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4251799,9880487,9880488],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1506796/zanzibar-shipping-s-a-v-railroad-locomotive-engine-number-2199/","attorney":"Julian & Seele, Robert M. Julian, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff., Hardy, Rodriguez & Colvin, Eduardo R. Rodriguez, Brownsville, Tex., for defendant.","caseName":"Zanzibar Shipping, S. A. v. Railroad Locomotive Engine Number 2199","caseNameFull":"ZANZIBAR SHIPPING, S. A. v. RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE NUMBER 2199, Railroad Car Number 17860, Railroad Car Number 33641, Sixteen Unknown Railroad Cars and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company","citation":["533 F. Supp. 392","1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9323"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":1506796,"court":"District Court, S.D. Texas","court_citation_string":"S.D. Tex.","court_id":"txsd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1982-02-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. A. B-80-241","docket_id":997744,"judge":"DeANDA","lexisCite":"1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9323","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T04:17:05.574143Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T13:40:11.167417Z","score":{"bm25":9.219849}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":840,"cites":[88101,91472,325532,1431303,3911103],"download_url":null,"id":1506796,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T09:13:36.182649Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T06:30:53.381453Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"f552f14d96a176dc9254e8ec9ab70a2e4506ba83","snippet":"\n533 F.Supp. 392 (1982)\nZANZIBAR SHIPPING, S. A.\nv.\nRAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE ENGINE NUMBER 2199, Railroad Car Number 17860, Railroad Car Number 33641, Sixteen Unknown Railroad Cars and Missouri Pacific Railroad Company.\nCiv. A. No. B-80-241.\nUnited States District Court, S. D. Texas, Brownsville Division.\nFebruary 25, 1982.\n*393 Julian","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1506796],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2042435/mapco-ammonia-pipeline-inc-v-state-board-of-equalization-assessment/","attorney":"William R. Johnson, of Kennedy, Holland, DeLacy & Svoboda; Bruce J. McWhirter, of Ross & Hardies; and Charlene H. Sinclair for appellants., Don Stenberg, Attorney General, and L. Jay Bartel for appellee.","caseName":"MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment","caseNameFull":"MAPCO Ammonia Pipeline, Inc., Appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, Appellee; Mid-America Pipeline Company, Appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, Appellee; Trailblazer Pipeline Company, Appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, Appellee; Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, Appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, Appellee","citation":["471 N.W.2d 734","238 Neb. 565","1991 Neb. LEXIS 272"],"citeCount":41,"cluster_id":2042435,"court":"Nebraska Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Neb.","court_id":"neb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1991-07-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"90-871, 90-872, 90-873, 90-874","docket_id":1876282,"judge":"Hastings, Boslaugh, White, Caporale, Shanahan, Grant, Fahrnbruch","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T08:20:52.691832Z","date_created":"2015-04-17T14:32:49.163828Z","score":{"bm25":8.548197}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9528662,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T06:34:54.144528Z","date_created":"2023-08-07T03:42:55.083417Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPer Curiam.\nThese are appeals from the findings and order of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment (State Board) dated August 15, 1990, denying claims for property tax relief submitted by various centrally assessed and locally assessed claimants. Pursuant to our order of September 17, 1990, the *567parties filed a “case stated” in accordance with Neb. Ct. R. ","type":"lead-opinion"},{"author_id":5016,"cites":[99843,100083,1239291,1240491,1246702,1281200,1298035,1302792,1311178,1342791,1525452,1598843,1599419,1605391,1852788,1892588,1921029,1923209,1940778,2018664,2055858,2080570,2088789,2118659,2130232,2130235,2150363,2201884,2618039,3604340,4941324,5406323,6165245,6197077,6217262],"download_url":null,"id":2042435,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T16:22:48.629808Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T08:09:08.003530Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0a8c8d0ea9a3715b0ef42f9e53ac4df2a80f3cf3","snippet":"\n471 N.W.2d 734 (1991)\n238 Neb. 565\nMAPCO AMMONIA PIPELINE, INC., Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT, Appellee.\nMID-AMERICA PIPELINE COMPANY, Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT, Appellee.\nTRAILBLAZER PIPELINE COMPANY, Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT, Appellee.\nNATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant,\nv.\nSTATE ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2042435,9528662,9528663,9528664],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8912154/in-re-pittsburgh-lake-erie-railroad/","attorney":"David H. Pittinsky, Lawrence D. Berger, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant; Stephen A. Weiner, Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, New York City, of counsel., Gilbert J. Helwig, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., Liaison Counsel, for defendants-appellees., Victor Wright, Henry C. Fader, Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs-appellees., Frederick N. Egler, Egler & Reinstadtler, Pittsburgh, Pa., Phillip H. Strubing, Nancy J. Gellman, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Thomas M. Kittredge, Arthur R. Littleton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Lewis H. Van Dusen, Jr., Raymond K. Denworth, Jr., Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Thomas B. Rutter, Mitchell S. Pinsly, Joseph Neff Ewing, Jr., Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, Philadelphia, Pa., Eben H. Cockley, Robert J. Hoerner, Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, Cleveland, Ohio, John J. McCarty, James F. Mundy, Raynes, McCarty & Binder, Philadelphia, Pa., J. Howe Brown, Booth, Prichard & Dudley, Fairfax, Va., for defendants-appellees.","caseName":"In Re Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad","caseNameFull":"In re The PITTSBURGH AND LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY SECURITIES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Appeal of OBJECTOR IRVING TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee","citation":["543 F.2d 1058","22 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 292","1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7297"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8912154,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","court_citation_string":"3rd Cir.","court_id":"ca3","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1976-09-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 76-1089","docket_id":66178355,"judge":"Aldisert, Garth, Gibbons","lexisCite":"1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 7297","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T22:22:46.218000Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T00:55:56.089062Z","score":{"bm25":8.322918}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8899986,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T04:58:34.715685Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T00:55:56.096098Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOPINION OF THE COURT\nGIBBONS, Circuit Judge.\nAppellant Irving Trust Company (Irving) is a trustee under two trust indentures executed by the predecessors of Penn Central Transportation Company (Penn Central) in anticipation of the public sale of their bonds. Pursuant to the terms of these indentures Penn Central pledged with and delivered to Irving as security a total of 116,698 shares of its stock in ","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8899986,8899987],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2570600/tyree-oil-inc-v-bureau-of-labor-industries/","attorney":"Dennis W. Percell argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Arnold, Gallagher, Saydack, Percell & Roberts, P.C., Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.","caseName":"Tyree Oil, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Complaint of Blair Fountain. TYREE OIL, INC., Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Respondent","citation":["2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 958","7 P.3d 571","168 Or. App. 278"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":2570600,"court":"Court of Appeals of Oregon","court_citation_string":"Or. Ct. App.","court_id":"orctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2000-06-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"10-98; CA A102804","docket_id":2436410,"judge":"Landau, Linder, Brewer","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:04:21.944511Z","date_created":"2014-10-31T00:02:47.214075Z","score":{"bm25":8.054931}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[321942,330090,414439,836621,1192582,1565480,3841716],"download_url":null,"id":2570600,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T20:48:15.919039Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T10:30:57.392300Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"90f4413a194cc7d199c64a572d78218f634a8131","snippet":"\n7 P.3d 571 (2000)\n168 Or. App. 278\nIn the Matter of the Complaint of Blair Fountain.\nTYREE OIL, INC., Petitioner,\nv.\nBUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Respondent.\n(10-98; CA A102804)\nCourt of Appeals of Oregon.\nArgued and Submitted May 10, 1999.\nDecided June 7, 2000.\n*572 Dennis W. Perce","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2570600],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1778825/factory-insurance-association-v-donco-corporation/","attorney":"Marvin L. Dinger, Ironton, for plaintiff-respondent., V. Kenneth Rohrer, Roberts & Roberts, Farmington, for defendant-appellant.","caseName":"Factory Insurance Association v. Donco Corporation","caseNameFull":"FACTORY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DONCO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant","citation":["496 S.W.2d 331","1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1195"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":1778825,"court":"Missouri Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Mo. Ct. App.","court_id":"moctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1973-06-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"9336","docket_id":1307577,"judge":"Titus, Stone, Hogan, Billings, JJ-","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T06:07:25.536097Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T15:44:11.677881Z","score":{"bm25":8.013907}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[293042,1627174,1777984,1780357,2406790,2426855,2459530,3469634],"download_url":null,"id":1778825,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T12:08:39.095647Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T07:24:13.249962Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"7a59ae6710438c1f99035f8920be4ae2e4b08768","snippet":"\n496 S.W.2d 331 (1973)\nFACTORY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Respondent,\nv.\nDONCO CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 9336.\nMissouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.\nJune 7, 1973.\n*332 Marvin L. Dinger, Ironton, for plaintiff-respondent.\nV. Kenneth Rohrer, Roberts & Roberts, Farmington, for defendant-appella","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1778825],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7104414/sayles-v-chicago-rock-island-pacific-railroad/","attorney":"Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, of Chicago (Charles M. Rush and John W. Kearns, Jr., of counsel) , for appellant., Schiff, Hardin, Waite, Dorschel & Britton, of Chicago (James B. O’Shaughnessy and Peter V. Fazio, Jr., of counsel), for appellee.","caseName":"Sayles v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad","caseNameFull":"Levi M. Sayles v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, Defendants Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation, Third Party v. The Sherwin-Williams Company, a Corporation, Third Party","citation":["103 Ill. App. 2d 36","243 N.E.2d 633","1968 Ill. App. LEXIS 1394"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7104414,"court":"Appellate Court of Illinois","court_citation_string":"Ill. App. Ct.","court_id":"illappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1968-11-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Gen. No. 50,881","docket_id":64092764,"judge":"Drucker, English, McCormick","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T12:38:39.525687Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T04:04:00.887369Z","score":{"bm25":8.012293}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7010284,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T09:56:36.309768Z","date_created":"2022-07-24T04:04:00.894477Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":" On Rehearing MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE McCORMICK delivered the opinion of the court. A suit had been brought by Levi M. Sayles against the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company (hereafter referred to as the Railroad) and two of its agents. Sayles was an employee of the Sherwin-Williams Paint Company (hereafter referred to as the I","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7010284],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/3152383/stephen-j-rogers-v-united-states/","attorney":"Mark F. (Thor) Hearne, II of Arent Fox, LLP, Clayton, MO; Andrew Prince Brigham of Brigham Property Rights Law Firm, Jacksonville, FL; Raoul G. Cantero, III and David P. Draigh of White & Case LLP, Miami, FL; and James W. Ely, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, for Appellants., John C, Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, and Lane N. McFadden, Appellate Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Michael T. Gray, Appellate Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Jacksonville, FL, for Appellee., Major Best Harding, James Harold Thompson, and Robert Neil Clarke, Jr. of Ausley & McMullen, P.A., Tallahassee, FL; and Kim Rice Bongiovanni, Assistant General Counsel, CSX Transportation, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, for Amicus Curiae CSX Transportation, Inc., Robert W. Goldman of Goldman Felco-ski & Stone, P.A., Naples, FL, for Amicus Curiae The Real Property, Probate & Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar., Matthew Zane Leopold, General Counsel, Craig Deron Varn, General Counsel, Ronald Elliot D. Potter, Senior Assistant General Counsel, and Sarah Meyer Doar, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund., Kenneth Bradley Bell, Amy Brigham Boulris, and Lauren Vickroy Purdy of Gunster Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Tallahassee, FL, for Amici Curiae Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway, LLC, The Apalachicola Northern Railway, LLC, The Bay Line Railroad, LLC, The First Coast Railroad, Inc., The Florida Central Railroad Company, Inc., Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, The Florida Midland Railroad Company, Inc., The Florida Northern Railroad Company, Inc., Georgia Southern and Florida Railway Company, Seminole Gulf Railway, LP, and The Talleyrand Terminal Railroad Company, Inc., Alexandra- Jennifer Overhoff, Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae Florida Land Title Association., Marc Allen Peoples, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae Florida Department of Transportation., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Allen C. Winsor, Solicitor General, and Rachel Erin Nordby, Deputy Solicitor' General, Tallahassee, FL, for Amicus Curiae State of Florida.","caseName":"Stephen J. Rogers v. United States","caseNameFull":"Stephen J. ROGERS, Et Al., Appellants, v. the UNITED STATES of America, Appellee","citation":["184 So. 3d 1087","40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 620","2015 Fla. LEXIS 2477","2015 WL 6749915"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":3152383,"court":"Supreme Court of Florida","court_citation_string":"Fla.","court_id":"fla","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-11-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SC14-1465","docket_id":3010215,"judge":"Canady, Labarga, Pariente, Lewis, Quince, Polston, Perry","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T18:01:27.438773Z","date_created":"2015-11-05T17:15:11.189629Z","score":{"bm25":7.6831884}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112373,211981,212170,577153,729791,1125952,1143523,1637538,1710960,1736058,1802878,1841497,2275993,2416325,2625902,3391010,3398930],"download_url":"http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2015/sc14-1465.pdf","id":3152383,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/11/05/stephen_j._rogers_v._united_states.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T03:34:39.403353Z","date_created":"2015-11-05T17:03:30.473776Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3549f1a4efb452776a0ab8449367bfb3cd8a9b79","snippet":"\n\n\n  CANADY, J.\n \n\n  Under the authority of article V, section 3(b)(6) of the Florida Constitution, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has certified to this Court a question of Floiida law which the Court of Appeals found would be determinative of an appeal pending in that court and upon which that court found there to be “no controlling precedent in the existing d","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[3152383],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6658147/dish-network-corp-v-dept-of-revenue/","attorney":"Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Also on the briefs were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Marilyn J. Harbur, James C. Strong, and Daniel Paul, Assistant Attorneys General., Nicholas G. Green, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, New York, argued the cause for respondent. Scott G. Seidman, Tonkin Torp LLP, Portland, filed the brief. Also on the brief was Nicholas G. Green., **256In 2009, taxpayer DISH Network Corporation (DISH) received an assessment order from the Department of Revenue showing that the department had valued its property in Oregon for tax purposes at an amount that exceeded the previous year's valuation by nearly 100 percent. The increase came about because the department had subjected DISH's property to central assessment and thus, also, to \"unit valuation,\" a method of valuing property that purports to capture the added value associated with a large, nationwide business network that, by statute, is available for central, but not local, assessments. ORS 308.555 (2007).1 Although DISH objected to the change from local to central assessment and continued to do so in successive tax years in appeals to the Oregon Tax Court, the department insisted that central assessment was required because DISH was using its property in a \"communication\" business. See ORS 308.515(1)(h) (stating that property used in certain businesses, including \"communication\" businesses, shall be assessed by the Department of Revenue). When DISH was forced to concede defeat on that issue, *382based on this court's decision in DIRECTV, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. , 360 Or. 21, 377 P.3d 568 (2016), another issue came to the fore in DISH's tax appeals: Did the drastic increase in the assessed value of DISH's property starting in the 2009-10 tax year violate Article XI, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that the assessed value of a unit of property in any given year cannot exceed the previous year's assessed value by more than three percent? The department argued that, because DISH's property had been newly added to the central assessment rolls in 2009, the property fell into an exception to the three-percent cap on increases in assessed value-for \"new property or new improvements to property.\" Or. Const., Art. XI, § 11 (1)(c)(A). The statutes implementing the constitutional provision define \"new property or new improvements\" to include \"the addition of *** property to the property tax account.\" ORS 308.149(5)(a)(C). The Tax Court rejected the department's \"new property\" theory and **257held that the department's assessments of DISH's property in the tax years after 2008-09 was unconstitutional., Most property in Oregon is assessed locally, by county assessors. ORS 308.210. However, the Department of Revenue is charged with centrally assessing property in Oregon that is \"used or held for future use by\" certain kinds of businesses-generally, those that provide services through networks or systems that operate over a large geographic area. ORS 308.515. Whether performed locally or centrally, assessment of property for purposes of taxation involves the preparation of an assessment roll. County assessment rolls are organized by \"property tax account,\" an administrative division of property for assessment purposes that generally consists of a parcel of land and the buildings, structures, improvements, machinery, equipment, and fixtures thereon which are assessable to the owner. See ORS 308.215(1) (\"real property shall be listed in sequence by account number\"); ORS 307.010(1)(b) (defining \"real property\" for purposes of property assessment as including the land itself and all buildings, structures, improvements, equipment or fixtures thereon). In contrast, the central assessment roll is organized by company and lists all the properties for which the company is liable to assessment under the central assessment statutes-specifically, all property that the company uses or holds for use in its business. ORS 308.515(1) ; ORS 308.540., **258Although the central assessment process is similar to the local assessment process, there are some notable differences. First, under central assessment, a company is assessed for the property it uses (or holds for future use) in its business, whereas under local assessment, a company (or person) is assessed for property that it owns. Compare ORS 308.515(1)with ORS 308.215. Second, only centrally assessed property may be subjected to \"unit valuation,\" whereby the value of a business's property \"both within and without the state\" is determined \"as a unit\" and, based on the proportion of certain of the business's physical assets that are situated in Oregon, part of the unit is deemed to be assessable and taxable in Oregon. ORS 308.555.2 In fact, as this court explained in *383Comcast Corp. v. Dept. of Rev. , 356 Or. 282, 289-93, 337 P.3d 768 (2014), the central assessment process was adopted in Oregon for the specific purpose of allowing statewide unit assessment of businesses that use property over a large area to operate a single network or system.3 Finally, and relatedly, while real property and \"tangible personal property\" are subject to both local and central assessment,4 only central assessment may also take \"intangible personal property\" into account.5 ORS 307.030(2) ; ORS 308.510(1). **259B. Article XI, Section 11, of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 50), In a nutshell, Measure 50 provides that, for the 1997 tax year, each \"unit of property\" in the state shall have a maximum assessed value (MAV) that does not exceed its real market value for 1995, less 10 percent. It further provides that, for each year after 1997, the property's MAV \"shall not increase by more than three percent from the previous tax year.\" The provision expressly allows for certain exceptions to that rule, but still limits the assessed value of property that falls into those exceptions. It does so by applying a ratio that seeks to produce the same reductions from real market value for exceptional properties that the application of Measure 50 has produced for neighboring properties of the same type. Thus, it provides, in paragraph 1 ( Article XI, section 11(1)(c) of the Oregon Constitution ):","caseName":"Dish Network Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue","caseNameFull":"DISH NETWORK CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE","citation":["434 P.3d 379","364 Or. 254"],"citeCount":29,"cluster_id":6658147,"court":"Oregon Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Or.","court_id":"or","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-01-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"TC 5007 (Control, 5050, 5140, 5201, 5239, 5267, 5293); (SC S065019)","docket_id":63636616,"judge":"Kistler","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:38:52.486900Z","date_created":"2022-07-19T21:40:47.130165Z","score":{"bm25":7.3655596}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6535514,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T20:23:35.206829Z","date_created":"2022-07-19T21:40:47.146260Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\"Notwithstanding [the described cap on maximum assessed value], property shall be valued at the ratio of average maximum assessed value to average real market **260value of property located in the area in which the property is located that is within the same property class, if on or after July 1, 1995:\n\"(A) The property is ne","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6535514,6535515],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4803213/stateline-cooperative-v-property-assessment-appeal-board/","attorney":"","caseName":"Stateline Cooperative v. Property Assessment Appeal Board","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4803213,"court":"Court of Appeals of Iowa","court_citation_string":"Iowa Ct. App.","court_id":"iowactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-11-04","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-0674","docket_id":18604193,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:28:02.157371Z","date_created":"2020-11-04T16:04:23.003428Z","score":{"bm25":7.27572}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1300827,1306135,1763728,2075564,2090104,2120197,2139576,3849823],"download_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/10279/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion","id":4583560,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/11/04/stateline_cooperative_v._property_assessment_appeal_board.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:30:45.222835Z","date_created":"2020-11-04T16:04:23.005339Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c6f204c1f660cf24273fefcb053a62cb12afb596","snippet":"                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA\n\n                                 No. 19-0674\n                           Filed November 4, 2020\n\n\nSTATELINE COOPERATIVE,\n     Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,\n\nvs.\n\nIOWA PROPERTY ASSESSMENT APPEAL BOARD,\n     Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,\n\nand\n\nEMMET COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW,\n     Respondent-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.\n________________________________________________________________\n\n\n      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Emmet Coun","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4583560],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4424839/regan-v-owen/","attorney":"","caseName":"Regan v. Owen","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4424839,"court":"Idaho Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"Idaho","court_id":"idaho","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2017-09-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"43848","docket_id":6149463,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:41:34.706921Z","date_created":"2017-09-08T15:09:54.494809Z","score":{"bm25":7.2438693}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107081,109528,110981,117841,229744,877011,1155801,1209375,1220392,1266677,1276770,2513893,2521014,2570891,2636797,3195892,3409078,3409483,5174590,5174802],"download_url":"http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/43848.pdf","id":4202092,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2017/09/08/regan_v._owen.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:08:20.162872Z","date_created":"2017-09-08T15:09:54.500322Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"2cfdc733f2548f260e710690a45075e6115afaa5","snippet":"                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO\n\n                                               Docket No. 43848\n\nBRENT REGAN and MOURA REGAN,            )\nhusband and wife,                       )\n                                        )\n                                                                         Boise, April 2017 Term\n      Plaintiffs-Appellants,            )\n                                        )\n                                                                 ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4202092],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8754957/baltimore-ohio-railroad-v-american-viscose-corp/","attorney":"Stewart McReynolds, Howard Caplan, Clarksburg, W. Va., for plaintiff., Charles V. Renner, Benjamin J. Parker, Parkersburg, W. Va., for defendant.","caseName":"Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. American Viscose Corp.","caseNameFull":"The BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROAD CO. v. AMERICAN VISCOSE CORPORATION","citation":["214 F. Supp. 287","1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6775"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":8754957,"court":"District Court, N.D. West Virginia","court_citation_string":"N.D.W. Va.","court_id":"wvnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1963-03-01","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civ. A. No. 1032-W","docket_id":66021019,"judge":"Paul","lexisCite":"1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6775","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:21:25.600753Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T10:31:52.668348Z","score":{"bm25":7.0345845}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8738232,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T04:08:13.032896Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T10:31:52.673215Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCHARLES F. PAUL, District Judge.\nThe plaintiff (Railroad) seeks indemnity, or, in the alternative, contribution, from the defendant (Industry) under the provisions of a spur-track agreement, for liability for personal injuries to one, Wade (an employee of the industry), resulting from a collision between a forklift truck being operated by Wade and the tender of the locomotive of a train being operated by the Railroad. The co","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8738232],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}