9 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2021 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kaady v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2020Motion to dismiss Defendant moves for dismissal of the Complaint arguing that (1) Plaintiff is not aggrieved under ORS 305.275; and (2) Plaintiff has failed to state ultimate facts sufficient to constitute a claim under TCR 21 A(8). 2 To begin, the court briefly addresses Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff is not aggrieved, as required by ORS 305.275(1)(a). 3 To be aggrieved, a “taxpayer [must have] an immediate claim of wrong.” Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000). 2018Defendant cites Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50 (1999) and Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124 (2000), for the proposition that taxpayers must be aggrieved and “have an immediate claim of wrong” to maintain an appeal to the tax court. | 5 | 8 |
Seneca Sustainable Energy, LLC v. Dep't of Revenuegreen2 sentences2021See id. at 798 .19 A line of cases in this court, pre- dating Seneca, interprets ORS 305.275(1) as requiring that the taxpayer have “an immediate claim of wrong” or injury. 2021See Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000) (taxpayer lacked standing to appeal excessive RMV on the roll because the lower RMV sought by taxpayer still would exceed AV; rejecting argument based on “speculative” risk of future law changes (citing Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50 (1999))); Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322 (2004) (no standing where taxpayers admitted in briefing that “the RMV of the floating home of Slip No. 10 does not immediately impact the Plaintiffs”); see also, e.g., Clackamas Co. v. Clackamas County Assessor, TC-MD 030868E, 2003 WL 22120735 at *1 | 1 | 1 |
Gall v. Department of Revenuegreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Gall v. Dept. of Rev. , 17 OTR 268 , 270-71 (2003) (noting that "[u]nder Measure 50 * * * there is no *Page 3 linkage between the RMV and MAV"); ORS 305.275 (1)(a) (requiring that a party appealing to the magistrate division of the Tax Court from an act of the assessor must be "aggrieved"); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 , 125 (2000) (ruling that there must be an immediate claim of wrong for a taxpayer to be aggrieved); Paris v. Dept. of Rev. , 19 OTR 519 , WL 4801342 (Nov 5, 2008) (ruling that the a party is not aggrieved in a property value appeal unless the resulting reducti | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2021See Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000) (taxpayer lacked standing to appeal excessive RMV on the roll because the lower RMV sought by taxpayer still would exceed AV; rejecting argument based on “speculative” risk of future law changes (citing Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50 (1999))); Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322 (2004) (no standing where taxpayers admitted in briefing that “the RMV of the floating home of Slip No. 10 does not immediately impact the Plaintiffs”); see also, e.g., Clackamas Co. v. Clackamas County Assessor, TC-MD 030868E, 2003 WL 22120735 at *1 2018Defendant cites Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50 (1999) and Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124 (2000), for the proposition that taxpayers must be aggrieved and “have an immediate claim of wrong” to maintain an appeal to the tax court. | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Sherman v. Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2021See Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000) (taxpayer lacked standing to appeal excessive RMV on the roll because the lower RMV sought by taxpayer still would exceed AV; rejecting argument based on “speculative” risk of future law changes (citing Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 50 (1999))); Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322 (2004) (no standing where taxpayers admitted in briefing that “the RMV of the floating home of Slip No. 10 does not immediately impact the Plaintiffs”); see also, e.g., Clackamas Co. v. Clackamas County Assessor, TC-MD 030868E, 2003 WL 22120735 at *1 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Paris v. Dept. of Rev.
green
1 sentence2010See, e.g., Gall v. Dept. of Rev. , 17 OTR 268 , 270-71 (2003) (noting that "[u]nder Measure 50 * * * there is no *Page 3 linkage between the RMV and MAV"); ORS 305.275 (1)(a) (requiring that a party appealing to the magistrate division of the Tax Court from an act of the assessor must be "aggrieved"); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 , 125 (2000) (ruling that there must be an immediate claim of wrong for a taxpayer to be aggrieved); Paris v. Dept. of Rev. , 19 OTR 519 , WL 4801342 (Nov 5, 2008) (ruling that the a party is not aggrieved in a property value appeal unless the resulting reducti | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Taylor
neutral
2 sentences1970State v. Taylor, 224 Or 106, 110-11 , 355 P2d 603 (1960), holds that whether such a hearing is necessary “is within the discretion, of the trial judge reasonably-exercised.” In that case:the court observed that the transcript indicated; that the defendant was-alert and-said discretion was properly exercised when the trial, judge did not hold a hearing under ORS 136.150. 1970State v. Taylor, 224 Or 106, 110-11 , 355 P2d 603 (1960), holds that whether such a hearing is necessary “is within the discretion, of the trial judge reasonably-exercised.” In that case:the court observed that the transcript indicated; that the defendant was-alert and-said discretion was properly exercised when the trial, judge did not hold a hearing under ORS 136.150. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.