market value standard (Oregon) · Go Syfert
← Oregon issues

market value standard in Oregon

7 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2023 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Gangle v. Department of Revenuegreen
ortc · 1995 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011"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)).

2011“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)).

12
State v. Hedgpethgreen
or · 2019 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See State v. Hedgpeth, 365 Or 724, 734 , 452 P3d 948 (2019) (“[A] factfinder’s common knowledge can supply the bridge to a factfinder’s reasonable inference.”); ORS 743B.281(2)(c) (in its estimate of costs, an insurer must include an itemization of the “[c]oinsurance, copayment or other cost share to be paid by the enrollee for the procedure or service”). 22 State v. Wagnon We do not foreclose the possibility that there may be a situation where a copay functions like a commodity such that a market-value test for reasonableness would be appro- priate.

2023See State v. Hedgpeth, 365 Or 724, 734 , 452 P3d 948 (2019) (“[A] factfinder’s common knowledge can supply the bridge to a factfinder’s reasonable inference.”); ORS 743B.281(2)(c) (in its estimate of costs, an insurer must include an itemization of the “[c]oinsurance, copayment or other cost share to be paid by the enrollee for the procedure or service”). 22 State v. Wagnon We do not foreclose the possibility that there may be a situation where a copay functions like a commodity such that a market-value test for reasonableness would be appro- priate.

11
Nordlinger v. Hahngreen
scotus · 1992 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022Each of those cases involved a market value standard for assessment and a failure by the taxing authority to apply that standard in a relatively uniform manner. 6 See also Nordlinger, 505 US at 14-15 (distinguishing Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Comm’n of Webster Cty., 488 US 336 , 109 S Ct 633 , 102 L Ed 2d 688 (1989), which involved a state constitutional requirement that properties be taxed uniformly at market value). /// 5 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2019. 6 In each case, taxpayer alleged that it had been singled out for correct assessment a

2022Each of those cases involved a market value standard for assessment and a failure by the taxing authority to apply that standard in a relatively uniform manner. 6 See also Nordlinger, 505 US at 14-15 (distinguishing Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Comm’n of Webster Cty., 488 US 336 , 109 S Ct 633 , 102 L Ed 2d 688 (1989), which involved a state constitutional requirement that properties be taxed uniformly at market value). /// 5 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2019. 6 In each case, taxpayer alleged that it had been singled out for correct assessment a

11
Robinson v. State Tax Commissiongreen
or · 1959 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018See Robinson v. Stewart, 216 Or 532, 536 , 339 P2d 432 (1959). a.

2018See Robinson v. Stewart, 216 Or 532, 536 , 339 P2d 432 (1959). a.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Swan Lake Moulding Co. v. Department of Revenue green
or · 1970
1 sentence

2023Swan Lake I, 257 Or at 625 .

12023–2023
Penn Phillips Lands, Inc. v. State Tax Commission green
or · 1967
1 sentence

2022In Penn Phillips Lands, the court found the “only practical relief” was to issue a refund to taxpayer that year. 247 Or at 387 .

12022–2022
Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Commission of Webster Cty. green
scotus · 1989
2 sentences

2022Each of those cases involved a market value standard for assessment and a failure by the taxing authority to apply that standard in a relatively uniform manner. 6 See also Nordlinger, 505 US at 14-15 (distinguishing Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Comm’n of Webster Cty., 488 US 336 , 109 S Ct 633 , 102 L Ed 2d 688 (1989), which involved a state constitutional requirement that properties be taxed uniformly at market value). /// 5 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2019. 6 In each case, taxpayer alleged that it had been singled out for correct assessment a

2022Each of those cases involved a market value standard for assessment and a failure by the taxing authority to apply that standard in a relatively uniform manner. 6 See also Nordlinger, 505 US at 14-15 (distinguishing Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Comm’n of Webster Cty., 488 US 336 , 109 S Ct 633 , 102 L Ed 2d 688 (1989), which involved a state constitutional requirement that properties be taxed uniformly at market value). /// 5 The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2019. 6 In each case, taxpayer alleged that it had been singled out for correct assessment a

12022–2022
Kingery v. Department of Revenue neutral
or · 1976
2 sentences

1989Kingery v. Dept. of Revenue, 276 Or 241 , 554 P2d 471 (1976). *216 The question here is whether the legislature intended to move away from the market value standard for closely held stock when it provided for valuing the underlying farmland at its farm use value.

1989Kingery v. Dept. of Revenue, 276 Or 241 , 554 P2d 471 (1976). *216 The question here is whether the legislature intended to move away from the market value standard for closely held stock when it provided for valuing the underlying farmland at its farm use value.

11989–1989

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.205 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 10 (1954–2009) OR 7 (1989–2023) MN 6 (1932–2013) LA 5 (1964–2013) NJ 4 (1971–2019) NY 4 (1918–2026) WA 4 (1972–2006) KS 3 (1937–1979) OK 3 (1977–2002) IL 3 (1953–1991) OH 2 (1922–2016) UT 2 (1998–2017) CT 2 (1927–1974) VA 2 (1933–2003) VT 2 (1965–1971) CO 2 (2022–2022) AK 2 (1987–2015) CA 2 (1971–2013) WV 2 (1889–1970) AZ 2 (1996–2006) AR 2 (1967–2022) SD 2 (1990–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check