{"count":106098,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0yOS4wODcyOTYmcz0xMjU5NTA0JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMTgmcD0y&q=TIME+OF+VALUATION&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4761724/bullen-v-sterling-valuation-group-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Bullen v. Sterling Valuation Group, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4761724,"court":"New York Supreme Court","court_citation_string":"N.Y. Sup. Ct.","court_id":"nysupct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-06-05","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2020 NYSlipOp 50653(U)","docket_id":17257666,"judge":"Ostrager","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-24T16:50:19.700960Z","date_created":"2020-06-17T19:10:05.112871Z","score":{"bm25":43.296383}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_50653.htm","id":4542071,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"wpd/2020/06/05/bullen_v._sterling_valuation_group_inc._1.wpd","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T19:29:00.497235Z","date_created":"2020-06-17T19:10:05.124429Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ebc65269e37b3194782374c3dea4eb29de24f1da","snippet":"\n\nBruce Bullen, et al., Plaintiffs,\r\n\r\nagainstSterling Valuation Group, Inc., Defendant.\n\n650050/2019\r\n\nPlaintiffs were represented by Glen B. Lenihan, Oved & Oved LLP, 401 Greenwich Street, New York, New York 10013 (212) 226-2379 glenihan@ovedlaw.com.\r\n<","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_50653.htm","id":4540176,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"wpd/2020/06/05/bullen_v._sterling_valuation_group_inc..wpd","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-10T11:42:11.418672Z","date_created":"2020-06-09T20:10:43.116560Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"788511e9a970cc2648ef8f14562f9445de84e388","snippet":"\n\nBruce Bullen, et al., Plaintiffs,\r\n\r\nagainstSterling Valuation Group, Inc., Defendant.\n\n650050/2019\r\n\nPlaintiffs were represented by Glen B. Lenihan, Oved & Oved LLP, 401 Greenwich Street, New York, New York 10013 (212) 226-2379 glenihan&commat;oved","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4540176,4542071],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6111102/sutton-v-hafner-valuation-group-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sutton v. Hafner Valuation Group, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Valerie M. Sutton v. Hafner Valuation Group, Inc.","citation":["115 A.D.3d 1039","982 N.Y.S.2d 185"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6111102,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-03-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62471234,"judge":"Garry, Lahtinen, McCarthy, Rose","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:11:32.192625Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T07:55:20.392945Z","score":{"bm25":40.418674}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2130833,5486558,5540339,5685742,5801297,5811731,5825489,6078280,6082244,9722096],"download_url":null,"id":5975906,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T00:09:43.962256Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T07:55:20.408439Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMcCarthy, J.\nAppeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mc-Grath, J.), entered January 28, 2013 in Rensselaer County, which, among other things, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and/or for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.\nIn connection with a partnership and corporate dissolution action, plaintiff retained defendant Hafner Valuation Group, Inc. to appraise real property and provide","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5975906],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5809922/talley-v-valuation-counselors-group-inc/","attorney":"Counsel, Dreher Law Firm, Robert Scott Dreher and Matthew R. Miller for Plaintiff, Respondent and Appellant Bruce R. Talley., Irell & Manella, Kenneth R. Heitz, Craig I. Vamen, Garland A. Kelley and Christopher Cowan for Defendant and Appellant Valuation Counselors Group, Inc., Hill, Farrer & Burrill and Steven W. Bacon for Defendant and Appellant Bank of America Corporation., Dion-Kindem & Crockett, William E. Crockett and Steven R. Skirvin for Defendant and Appellant Jerold V. Goldstein., David A. Hahn Law Offices and G. Patrick Connors III for Defendant and Appellant Victor P. Dhooge., Gary A. Kurtz for Defendants and Appellants Robert Kasirer, Debra Kasirer and Leo Dierckman., Gordon & Rees, Kevin W. Alexander and Kimberly D. Howatt for Defendants and Respondents.","caseName":"Talley v. Valuation Counselors Group, Inc.","caseNameFull":"BRUCE R. TALLEY, and v. VALUATION COUNSELORS GROUP, INC., and JOHN M. CLAREY, and","citation":["191 Cal. App. 4th 132","119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 300","2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2146"],"citeCount":34,"cluster_id":5809922,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-12-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. D055894","docket_id":62167357,"judge":"Huffman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T06:50:33.947001Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T03:52:30.814990Z","score":{"bm25":38.018013}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1174698,1174832,1360978,1369336,1374419,1389352,1406689,1433699,2111546,2140059,2264180,2283120,2285935,2292799],"download_url":null,"id":5665341,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-07T12:49:31.482533Z","date_created":"2022-01-12T03:52:30.833860Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n*136Opinion\nHUFFMAN, J.\nSince 2001, this long-ranning dispute has traveled back and forth between state and federal courts at the respective trial and appellate levels. We now have before us the trial court’s appealable orders vacating certain judgments of dismissal of an action, in which plaintiff, respondent and cross-appellant, Bruce R. Talley (Talley","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5665341],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6111100/sutton-v-hafner-valuation-group-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sutton v. Hafner Valuation Group, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Valerie M. Sutton v. Hafner Valuation Group, Inc.","citation":["115 A.D.3d 1039","982 N.Y.S.2d 185"],"citeCount":10,"cluster_id":6111100,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-03-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62471232,"judge":"Garry, Lahtinen, McCarthy, Rose","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:11:32.135615Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T07:55:19.988788Z","score":{"bm25":36.26322}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2130833,5486558,5540339,5685742,5801297,5811731,5825489,6078280,6082244,9722096],"download_url":null,"id":5975904,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T00:09:43.959960Z","date_created":"2022-01-13T07:55:20.003167Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMcCarthy, J.\nAppeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Mc-Grath, J.), entered January 28, 2013 in Rensselaer County, which, among other things, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and/or for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.\nIn connection with a partnership and corporate dissolution action, plaintiff retained defendant Hafner Valuation Group, Inc. to appraise real property and provide","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5975904],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4875630/zachman-v-real-time-cloud-services/","attorney":"","caseName":"Zachman v. Real Time Cloud Services","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4875630,"court":"Supreme Court of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del.","court_id":"del","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-04-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"260, 2020","docket_id":59840728,"judge":"Valihura J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:47:46.886103Z","date_created":"2021-04-21T16:03:03.825892Z","score":{"bm25":36.014202}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":4012,"cites":[1546005,1967311,2197617],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=319290","id":4679409,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/04/20/zachman_v._real_time_cloud_services.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T19:55:06.808940Z","date_created":"2021-04-21T16:03:03.835518Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"41f05fd7baea64c73106c601d9fa5b393d6458a6","snippet":"         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\n  JAMES A. ZACHMAN,                 §\n                                    §         No. 260, 2020\n       Plaintiff Below,             §\n       Appellant/Cross-Appellee,    §         Court Below—Court of\n                                    §         Chancery of the State of\n       v.                           §         Delaware\n                                    §\n  REAL TIME CLOUD SERVICES          §         C.A. No. 9729-VCG\n  LLC, SANGEE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4679409],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6239783/time-warner-cable-inc-v-cnty-of-l-a/","attorney":"Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Albert Ramseyer, Deputy County Counsel; Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro and Elizabeth G. Chilton for Defendant and Appellant., Gordon & Polland, Paul M. Gordon, Oakland; Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, Eversheds Sutherland and Douglas Mo, Sacramento, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.","caseName":"Time Warner Cable Inc. v. Cnty. of L. A.","caseNameFull":"TIME WARNER CABLE INC. and v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and","citation":["235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 867","25 Cal. App. 5th 457"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":6239783,"court":"California Court of Appeal, 5th District","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App. 5th","court_id":"calctapp5d","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-07-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"B270062","docket_id":62615069,"judge":"Chaney, Johnson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:45:48.444041Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T16:30:25.985675Z","score":{"bm25":35.07219}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1140053,2114471,2139324,2172288,2289316,5665978],"download_url":null,"id":6106712,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T05:17:58.928038Z","date_created":"2022-01-21T16:30:26.006107Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nJOHNSON, J.\n*461Time Warner Cable (Time Warner) operates a cable system that uses public rights-of-way in Los Angeles to provide cable television,1 broadband, and telephone services. Time Warner initially only provided television services. Once changing technologies enabled broadband and telephone services to be del","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6106712,6106713],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7310722/general-star-national-insurance-v-adams-valuation-corp/","attorney":"Gustavo Adolfo Otalvora, Sarah Hope Dearing, Hinkhouse Williams Walsh LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff., Craig Michael Capilla, Justin Nathan Fielkow, Franklin Law Group, Northfield, IL, Stuart Jay Chanen, Margot Klein, Va-, lorem Law Group LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.","caseName":"General Star National Insurance v. Adams Valuation Corp.","caseNameFull":"GENERAL STAR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ADAMS VALUATION CORPORATION, Douglas Adams, and Diane Goldring Nesbitt","citation":["69 F. Supp. 3d 742","2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133223","2014 WL 4783027"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":7310722,"court":"District Court, N.D. Illinois","court_citation_string":"N.D. Ill.","court_id":"ilnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-09-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14 C 1821","docket_id":64299199,"judge":"Feinerman","lexisCite":"2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133223","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:34:02.104500Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:19:35.697413Z","score":{"bm25":34.66254}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7228626,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:10:49.858833Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:19:35.704580Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nMemorandum Opinion and Order\n\nGARY SCOTT FEINERMAN, United States District Judge\nIn late 2013, Diane Goldring Nesbitt sued Adams Valuation Corporation and Douglas Adams (together, “Adams”), along with several other individuals and a law partnership, in Nesbitt v. Regas, 13 C 8245 (N.D.Ill.) (Tharp, J.). General Star National Insurance Company, which had issued an insurance policy to Adams,","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7228626],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2599809/in-re-the-appeal-of-director-of-property-valuation/","attorney":"William E. Waters, of Property Valuation Division, Kansas Department of Revenue, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant., C. Michael Lennen, of Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chartered, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Robert W. Coykendall, of the same firm, was with him on the brief for appellees.","caseName":"In Re the Appeal of Director of Property Valuation","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Appeal of the Director of Property Valuation, From an Order of the Board of Tax Appeals Exempting Stored Natural Gas From Property Taxation","citation":["161 P.3d 755","284 Kan. 592","170 Oil & Gas Rep. 95","2007 Kan. LEXIS 462"],"citeCount":10,"cluster_id":2599809,"court":"Supreme Court of Kansas","court_citation_string":"Kan.","court_id":"kan","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2007-07-13","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"96,986","docket_id":317969,"judge":"Luckert, Larson","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T13:17:30.843533Z","date_created":"2015-09-07T17:24:26.667025Z","score":{"bm25":34.52911}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1152943,1172194,1351224,1375583,1408950,1427461,1449497,2308817,2518337,2520803,2549663,2612646,2622783,2623238,2630675,2635288],"download_url":null,"id":2599809,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T21:05:08.563677Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T11:18:49.780536Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":true,"sha1":"d318cb7af6ceb59745686d8e003910b48235daba","snippet":"\n161 P.3d 755 (2007)\nIn the Matter of The Appeal of the DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY VALUATION, from an Order of the Board of Tax Appeals Exempting Stored Natural Gas From Property Taxation.\nNo. 96,986.\nSupreme Court of Kansas.\nJuly 13, 2007.\n*757 William E. Waters, of Property Valuation Division, Kansas Department of Revenue, argued the cause an","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2599809],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10658616/lowes-home-centers-llc-v-floyd-arnold-montgomery-county-property/","attorney":"","caseName":"Lowe's Home Centers, LLC v. Floyd Arnold, Montgomery County Property Valuation Administrator","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10658616,"court":"Court of Appeals of Kentucky","court_citation_string":"Ky. Ct. App.","court_id":"kyctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-08-22","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2024-CA-0307","docket_id":71175095,"judge":"Eckerle","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-08-22T14:10:48.298211Z","date_created":"2025-08-22T14:10:48.117331Z","score":{"bm25":33.57584}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1730478,1786884,2428396,2460785,3450207,3588462,5027243,5047811,5067530,5068824,5069999,5093976,6107744],"download_url":"https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/api/api/v1/publicaccessdocuments/55362793bc8ba1a76f875282106112f93080b78da82aa55df76c0986dec42471/download","id":11125203,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/08/22/lowes_home_centers_llc_v._floyd_arnold_montgomery_county_property.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-01T17:32:09.547720Z","date_created":"2025-08-22T14:10:48.129859Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bc2f2932637e9ee3983c48bd488ac12dfdddd1df","snippet":"                 RENDERED: AUGUST 22, 2025; 10:00 A.M.\n                         TO BE PUBLISHED\n\n                Commonwealth of Kentucky\n                          Court of Appeals\n                             NO. 2024-CA-0307-MR\n\nLOWE’S HOME CENTERS, L.L.C.                                         APPELLANT\n\n\n             APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT\nv.             HONORABLE ELIZABETH H. DAVIS, JUDGE\n                      ACTION NO. 22-CI-90079\n\n\nFLOYD ARNOLD, MONTGOMERY\nCOUNTY PROPERTY ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11125203],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1057352/mollica-v-division-of-property-valuation-review/","attorney":"Christopher D. Roy of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, Burlington, for Plaintiffs-Appellees., William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Stephen W. Gould and Danforth Cardozo, III, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.","caseName":"Mollica v. Division of Property Valuation & Review","caseNameFull":"Peter M. Mollica and Sandra H. Mollica v. Division of Property Valuation and Review","citation":["184 Vt. 83","2008 VT 60","955 A.2d 1171","2008 Vt. LEXIS 54"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":1057352,"court":"Supreme Court of Vermont","court_citation_string":"Vt.","court_id":"vt","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2008-05-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2006-410","docket_id":1747694,"judge":"Reiber, Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund, Burgess","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T01:31:36.676132Z","date_created":"2014-11-21T17:57:07.313202Z","score":{"bm25":33.248447}},"neutralCite":"2008 VT 60","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1439909,1945899,2058356,2109164,2334985,2349632,2399323,2401164],"download_url":"http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/supct/current/op2006-410.html","id":1057352,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2008/05/02/mollica_v._division_of_property_valuation__review.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:46:40.985031Z","date_created":"2013-10-09T16:44:16.910313Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b27e2def5ede536ba85da03b8779cb33f96fd459","snippet":"\n\n\n  Skoglund, J.\n \n\n  ¶ 1. The Vermont Department of Taxes’ Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) appeals from a superior court decision reversing PVR’s determination that part of a parcel of land owned by Peter and Sandra Mollica was no longer eligible to be enrolled in a program designed to give tax breaks to landowners who maintain their property as farm and forest lands. We aff","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1057352],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7971690/in-re-the-appeals-of-various-applicants-from-a-decision-of-the-division-of/","attorney":"Robert W. Coykendall, of Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chartered, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Will R. Wohlford, of the same finn, was with him on the briefs for appellants., William E. Waters, of Division of Property Valuation, Kansas Department of Revenue, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.","caseName":"In re the Appeals of Various Applicants from a Decision of the Division of Property Valuation","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Appeals of Various Applicants from a Decision of the Division of Property Valuation of the State of Kansas for Tax Year 2009 Pursuant to K.S.A. 74-2438 and In the Matter of the Application of Various Applicants for Exemption from Property Taxation in the State of Kansas","citation":["298 Kan. 439","313 P.3d 789"],"citeCount":16,"cluster_id":7971690,"court":"Supreme Court of Kansas","court_citation_string":"Kan.","court_id":"kan","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-12-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 105,785","docket_id":65066907,"judge":"Biles","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T16:32:55.032109Z","date_created":"2022-09-08T22:30:17.621274Z","score":{"bm25":32.479}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7924121,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T14:26:28.932793Z","date_created":"2022-09-08T22:30:17.634330Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n*440The opinion of the court was delivered by\nBiles, J.:\nThis is a consolidated tax appeal disputing whether natural gas stored in facilities located in Kansas under contract with interstate companies is subject to ad valorem taxation. The Kansas Constitution, Article 11, § 1 (2012 Supp.) exempts merchants’ inventory from such taxation, but that exemptio","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7924121],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10039964/bain-schindele-tax-consulting-llc-and-sarah-schindele-v-ew-tax-and/","attorney":"","caseName":"Bain & Schindele Tax Consulting, LLC and Sarah Schindele v. EW Tax and Valuation Group, LLP","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10039964,"court":"Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)","court_citation_string":"Tex. App.-Dallas","court_id":"txctapp5","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-08-07","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"05-23-00560-CV","docket_id":69041812,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:17:26.581233Z","date_created":"2024-08-14T06:12:32.440262Z","score":{"bm25":32.30661}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3086368,4067931,4255831,5287977],"download_url":"https://search.txcourts.gov/RetrieveDocument.aspx?DocId=48635&Index=%5c%5c10%2e20%2e4%2e7%5cTamesIndexes%5ccoa05%5cOpinion","id":10506565,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/08/07/bain__schindele_tax_consulting_llc_and_sarah_schindele_v._ew_tax_and.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-02-24T13:17:26.557408Z","date_created":"2024-08-14T06:12:32.442132Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"fe60c8255f9f055c595197c8c294367ccf3ffcb7","snippet":"REVERSE and RENDER; AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed August 7, 2024\n\n\n\n\n                                   S  In The\n                            Court of Appeals\n                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas\n                               No. 05-23-00560-CV\n\n     BAIN & SCHINDELE TAX CONSULTING, LLC AND SARAH\n              SCHINDELE, Appellants/Cross-Appellees\n                             V.\n   EW TAX AND VALUATION GROUP, LLP, Appellee/Cross-Appellant\n\n               On Appeal from the 116th ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10506565],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4518772/time-warner-cable-inc-v-county-of-los-angeles/","attorney":"","caseName":"Time Warner Cable Inc. v. County of Los Angeles","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4518772,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-07-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"B270062","docket_id":7479254,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:07:34.711715Z","date_created":"2018-07-19T23:01:47.835197Z","score":{"bm25":32.290302}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[799969,1140053,1213949],"download_url":"http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B270062.PDF","id":4296025,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/07/19/time_warner_cable_inc._v._county_of_los_angeles.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T16:13:42.657939Z","date_created":"2018-07-19T23:01:47.846535Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4c08b8c1f78ad44c703c0e0b6aea4ed64631258a","snippet":"Filed 7/19/18\n                CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION\n\n\nIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\n\n                SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\n                         DIVISION ONE\n\nTIME WARNER CABLE INC. et al.            B270062\n\n       Plaintiffs and Respondents,       (Los Angeles County\n                                         Super. Ct. No. BC528475)\n       v.\n\nCOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,\n\n       Defendant and Appellant.\n\n\n      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los\nAngel","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4296025],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/7322267/lusk-v-life-time-fitness-inc/","attorney":"Kai H. Richter, NICHOLS RASTER, PLLP, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4600, Minneapolis, MN 55402; David T. Wiss-broecker, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101; Jason Levitón and Jacob A. Walker, BLOCK & LEVI-TON LLP, 155 Federal Street, Suite 400, Boston, MA 02110, for plaintiff Matthew Lusk., Kai H. Richter, NICHOLS RASTER, PLLP, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4600, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for plaintiff St. Clair Employees’ Retirement System., Wendy J. Wildung, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendants Life Time Fitness, Inc., Giles H. Bateman, Jack W. Eugster, Guy C. Jackson, John K. Lloyd, Martha A. Mor-fitt, John B. Richards, and Joseph S. Vas-salluzzo., Thomas P. Swigert, DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendant Bahram Akradi., Michele D. Johnson, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, 650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; and Bret A. Puls, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402; for defendant Leonard Green & Partners L.P., Christopher G. Green, ROPES & GRAY LLP, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02199; Martin Crisp, ROPES & GRAY LLP, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10086; Bret A. Puls, FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendant TPG Capital, L.P., Frank A. Taylor, BRIGGS & MORGAN, PA, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for defendant LKN Partners.","caseName":"Lusk v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Matthew LUSK and St. Clair Employees' Retirement System v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., Bahfam Akradi, Giles H. Bateman, Jack W. Eugster, Guy C. Jackson, John K. Lloyd, Martha A. Morfitt, John B. Richards, Joseph S. Vassalluzzo, Leonard Green & Partners L.P., TPG Capital, L.P., and LKN Partners","citation":["213 F. Supp. 3d 1119","2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136388","2016 WL 5796836"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":7322267,"court":"District Court, D. Minnesota","court_citation_string":"D. Minnesota","court_id":"mnd","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-09-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil No. 15-1911 (JRT/BRT)","docket_id":64310750,"judge":"Tunheim","lexisCite":"2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136388","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T13:37:15.085597Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:56:01.335597Z","score":{"bm25":32.100338}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":7240177,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T21:31:42.511859Z","date_created":"2022-07-25T04:56:01.343150Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS\nJOHN R. TUNHEIM, Chief Judge United States District Court\nPlaintiffs Matthew Lusk and St. Clair County Employees’ Retirement System (“St. Clair”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) are former shareholders of defendant Life Time Fitness, Inc. (“Life Time”). This litigation relates to the purchase of Life Time by defendants Leonard Green & Partners L.P. (“LG","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[7240177],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6580148/in-re-the-valuation-of-bell-atlantic-mobile-of-massachusetts-corp/","attorney":"Anthony M. Ambriano for board of assessors of Boston & another., Richard G. Chmielinski, Assistant City Solicitor, for board of assessors of Newton., Douglas M. Reeves, of New Jersey (Kathleen King Parker with him) for the taxpayer., Martha Coakley, Attorney General, & Daniel A. Shapiro & Daniel J. Hammond, Assistant Attorneys General, for Commissioner of Revenue, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.","caseName":"In re the Valuation of Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corp.","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Valuation of Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation, Ltd.","citation":["456 Mass. 728","926 N.E.2d 133","2010 Mass. LEXIS 212"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6580148,"court":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","court_citation_string":"Mass.","court_id":"mass","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2010-05-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":63510156,"judge":"Botsford","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:17:26.144006Z","date_created":"2022-06-25T12:37:49.333763Z","score":{"bm25":31.888962}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1457088,2178980,2222680,2225307,2239888,6448797,6450396,6451868,6451966,6452192,6452832,6453100,6453234,6453311,6453845,6453889,6454109,6454153,6462873,9433552],"download_url":null,"id":6454282,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T20:00:06.090060Z","date_created":"2022-06-25T12:37:49.339644Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nBotsford, J.\nThe present case is a sequel to this court’s decision in Bell Atl. Mobile of Mass. Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 451 Mass. 280 (2008) (Bell Atl. Mobile I). In that case, we reviewed appeals brought before the Appellate Tax Board (board) under G. L. c. 59, § 39 (§ 39), in which Bell Atlantic Mobile of Massachusetts Corporation, Ltd. (Bell *729","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6454282],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6580031/in-re-the-valuation-of-mci-worldcom-network-services-inc/","attorney":"William A. Hazel for the taxpayers., Richard G. Chmielinski, Assistant City Solicitor, for Board of Assessors of Newton., Anthony M. Ambriano for Board of Assessors of Boston., Daniel A. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney General (Daniel J. Hammond, Assistant Attorney General, with him) for Commissioner of Revenue., Rosemary Crowley & David J. Martel, for Massachusetts Association of Assessing Officers, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.","caseName":"In re the Valuation of MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc.","caseNameFull":"In the Matter of the Valuation of MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. (and sixteen companion cases)","citation":["454 Mass. 635","912 N.E.2d 920","2009 Mass. LEXIS 635"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":6580031,"court":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","court_citation_string":"Mass.","court_id":"mass","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2009-09-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":63510039,"judge":"Cordy","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:17:24.051698Z","date_created":"2022-06-25T12:37:37.068353Z","score":{"bm25":31.169956}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2001287,2016406,2065245,2067636,2073167,2082460,2222680,6440861,6449735,6450653,6450867,6451246,6451251,6451555,6452952,6453100,6453137,6453540,6453845,6453883,6453942,9726194],"download_url":null,"id":6454153,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T20:00:04.370876Z","date_created":"2022-06-25T12:37:37.075062Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nCordy, J.\nThis case presents challenges to the Commissioner of Revenue’s (commissioner’s) central valuations, made pursuant to G. L. c. 59, § 39 (§ 39), of the “machinery, poles, wires and underground conduits, wires and pipes” (§ 39 property) of the taxpayer telephone companies for fiscal year (FY) 2004, FY 2005, and FY 2006. In deciding those challenges, we must resolve several issues, including (1) whether the Appellat","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6454153],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4734233/gwendolyn-wash-v-real-time-resolution-inc-in-re-washington/","attorney":"\n  Jenny L. Doling of Doling Shaw & Hanover, APC, Palm Desert, argued for Appellant Gwendolyn Washington.\n , \n  Renee M. Parker of The Mortgage Law Firm, PLLC, Honolulu, argued for Appellee Real Time Resolution, Inc., as agent for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-2.\n ","caseName":"Gwendolyn Wash. v. Real Time Resolution, Inc. (In Re Washington)","caseNameFull":"In RE: Gwendolyn WASHINGTON, Debtor. Gwendolyn Washington, Appellant, v. Real Time Resolution, Inc., as Agent for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-2, Appellee.","citation":["602 B.R. 710"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":4734233,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit","court_citation_string":"9th Cir. BAP","court_id":"bap9","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-07-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"BAP CC-18-1206-LKuF; Bk. 6:17-bk-15102-MH","docket_id":16954142,"judge":"Lafferty, Kurtz, Faris","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:10:01.698871Z","date_created":"2020-03-11T00:01:44.419734Z","score":{"bm25":30.75084}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112680,780223,781810,786301,1428173,1540741,1542143,1842949,1930700,1988018,2193230,2195918,2196349],"download_url":"http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2019/07/31/Washington-18-1206.pdf","id":4514580,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/07/30/in_re_gwendolyn_washington.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:45:23.781457Z","date_created":"2020-03-11T00:01:44.426758Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"cbab590ec26a2ee588de11f477eb3349d59adb1a","snippet":"\n\n\n  LAFFERTY, Bankruptcy Judge:\n \n\n\n   INTRODUCTION\n  \n\n\n  Appellant-Debtor Gwendolyn Washington obtained a chapter 7\n  \n   1\n  \n  discharge, which extinguished her personal liability on the debt secured by a junior lien on her residence. About five years later, she filed a chapter 13 case; she ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4514580],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8913733/time-warner-entertainment-advancenewhouse-partnership-v-town-of-landis/","attorney":"\nBrooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, by Reid Phillips, and Hogan Lovells US LLP, by Gardner Gillespie and Paul Werner, for plaintiff-appellant.\n, \nPoynerSpruillLLP, by Andrew H. Erteschik, for defendant-appellee.\n, \nNelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, by Joseph W. Eason, Christopher J. Blake, and Phillip A. Harris, Jr., for the North Carolina Association of Electric Cooperatives, amicus curiae.\n, \nDavid M. Barnes, for Electricities of North Carolina, Inc., amicus curiae.\n","caseName":"Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis","caseNameFull":"TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP v. TOWN OF LANDIS, NORTH CAROLINA","citation":["228 N.C. App. 510","747 S.E.2d 610","2013 WL 3990745","2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 830"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":8913733,"court":"Court of Appeals of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C. Ct. App.","court_id":"ncctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-08-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. COA 13-22","docket_id":66179938,"judge":"Hunter, McGee, Robert, Stephens","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T22:23:11.401058Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T01:10:51.928337Z","score":{"bm25":29.451141}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8901685,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T19:31:08.907895Z","date_created":"2022-11-27T01:10:51.933695Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nHUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.\nTime Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership (“TWEAN”) appeals a trial court order dismissing its case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon review, we reverse and remand.\nI. Facts & Procedural History\nIn 1979, Vision Cable Communications, Inc. (“Vision”) began providing cable television services in the Town of Landis (“Landis”). On 16 J","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8901685],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8767195/massachusetts-asset-financing-corp-v-mb-valuation-services-inc/","attorney":"Christopher P. Maffucci, Robert A. Murphy, Casner & Edwards, LLP, Richard S. Rosenstein, Pepe & Hazard LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff., David J. Hatem, Donovan & Hatem, LLP, Matthew Mackay O’Leary, Warren D. Hutchison, LeClair Ryan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Defendant Sardone, Robinson & Schnell., Dale A. Coggins, Patrick J. Dolan, Robert T. Gill, Timothy O. Egan, Peabody & Arnold LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant MB Valuation Services, Inc., Wanda Kinney-Canary, Tri-Tech Appraisal Services, Louisville, KY, pro se.","caseName":"Massachusetts Asset Financing Corp. v. MB Valuation Services., Inc.","caseNameFull":"MASSACHUSETTS ASSET FINANCING CORPORATION v. MB VALUATION SERVICES, INC.","citation":["248 F.R.D. 359","2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14921","2008 WL 538967"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8767195,"court":"District Court, D. Massachusetts","court_citation_string":"D. Mass.","court_id":"mad","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2008-02-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Civil Action No. 2001-11612-RBC","docket_id":66033310,"judge":"Collings","lexisCite":"2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14921","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T21:27:09.075985Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T11:26:07.418398Z","score":{"bm25":29.34985}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[106497,195880,196161,200363,276851,368207,410378,709200,6985747],"download_url":null,"id":8750673,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T04:12:08.805218Z","date_created":"2022-11-26T11:26:07.430606Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nMEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER (#267)\n\nROBERT B. COLLINGS, United States Magistrate Judge.\nI. INTRODUCTION\nOn September 20, 2001, plaintiff Massachusetts Asset Financing Corporation (“MAFCO”) filed a Complaint (# 1) of negligence against the above-named defendants, including defendant MB Valuation Services, Inc. (“MB Valuation”). A day later, on Septe","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8750673],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1259504/withington-v-valuation-group-inc/","attorney":"Stanley E. Kreimer, Jr., for appellant., McGee & Oxford, James J. Brissette, for appellee.","caseName":"Withington v. Valuation Group, Inc.","caseNameFull":"Withington v. Valuation Group, Inc.","citation":["547 S.E.2d 594","249 Ga. App. 8","2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 1129","2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 360"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":1259504,"court":"Court of Appeals of Georgia","court_citation_string":"Ga. Ct. App.","court_id":"gactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2001-03-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A00A1944","docket_id":1558954,"judge":"Phipps, Johnson, Smith","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T02:45:39.075984Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T17:40:26.645280Z","score":{"bm25":29.087296}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":7174,"cites":[1216706,1236176,1236263,1256306,1262545,1287088,1314633,1331790,1345133,1352331,1398582],"download_url":null,"id":1259504,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T06:24:12.689341Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:15:58.707460Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"67aa7d93d07a21adeda457a13554d5e32f36d81d","snippet":"\n547 S.E.2d 594 (2001)\n249 Ga. App. 8\nWITHINGTON\nv.\nVALUATION GROUP, INC.\nNo. A00A1944.\nCourt of Appeals of Georgia.\nMarch 15, 2001.\nReconsideration Denied April 2, 2001.\nCertiorari Denied September 7, 2001.\nStanley E. Kreimer, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.\nMcGee & Oxford, James J. Brissette, Atlanta","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1259504],"source":"LU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""}]}