7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dept. of Rev. v. River's Edge Investments LLCgreen2 sentences2016That explanation is deficient for two reasons.” Id. at 475 (emphasis added). 2016That explanation is deficient for two reasons.” Id. at 475 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Gangle v. Department of Revenuegreen1 sentence2012“Real market value is the standard used throughout the ad valorem statutes except for special assessments.” Richardson v. Clackamas County Assessor, TC-MD No 020869D, WL 21263620 at *2 (Mar 26, 2003) (citing Gangle v. Dept. of Rev., 13 OTR 343, 345 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Hartsock v. Commissiongreen1 sentence1990Plaintiffs rely on Hartsock v. Commission, 3 OTR 434, 439 (1969), as support for this conclusion. | 1 | 1 |
Carman, Carman, Detlefsen, Forbes, Gray, Hoffman, Huntley, Laird, Lund, Luttrell, Rankin & Dement v. Department of Revenuegreen1 sentence1986Howell has discussed the income test: “The use of the income approach to determine values of farms in a zoned or unzoned area requires a determination of net farm income and a capitalization rate. * * * To determine the net farm income to be used in valuing the farms on an income basis it is necessary to find the typical or reasonable net rental for similar farms being rented in the area.” Carman v. Dept. of Rev., 3 OTR 516, 517 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2012ORS 308A.724(2) states in pertinent part that: “If an owner of land disqualified under one of the special assessment laws listed in ORS 308A.706(1)(d) seeks to qualify for farm use special assessment of nonexclusive farm use zone farmland under ORS 308A.068, the owner shall have five years, beginning with the first year in which application is made under this section, to qualify for the two-year farm use requirement of ORS 308A.068 and the income requirement under ORS 308A.071.”1 “In interpreting a statute, the court's task is to discern the intent of the legislature.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor a 2012ORS 308A.724(2) states in pertinent part that: “If an owner of land disqualified under one of the special assessment laws listed in ORS 308A.706(1)(d) seeks to qualify for farm use special assessment of nonexclusive farm use zone farmland under ORS 308A.068, the owner shall have five years, beginning with the first year in which application is made under this section, to qualify for the two-year farm use requirement of ORS 308A.068 and the income requirement under ORS 308A.071.”1 “In interpreting a statute, the court's task is to discern the intent of the legislature.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor a | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Preble v. Department of Revenue
green
1 sentence2012DECISION TC-MD 110996D 2 for farm use special assessment of nonexclusive farm use zone farmland under ORS 308A.068.” ORS 308A.724(2); (Stip Fact 9, 11.) An owner seeking to qualify under ORS 308A.068 is given “five years * * * to qualify for the two-year farm use requirement of ORS 308A.068 and the income requirement under ORS 308A.071.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Everhart v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences2009Id. at (2)(a). *Page 7 Because Defendant did not disqualify Plaintiffs' property from special assessment for failure to meet the income requirement, Plaintiffs' property must have met the statutory requirement. 2009Id. at (2)(a). *Page 7 Because Defendant did not disqualify Plaintiffs' property from special assessment for failure to meet the income requirement, Plaintiffs' property must have met the statutory requirement. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.