53 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2021 1 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 sentences2016“In requiring that taxpayers be ‘aggrieved’ under ORS 305.275, the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong.” Kaady 15 OTR at 125 . 2015FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 150079C 2 assessed value and assessed value, and there was “[n]o showing * * * that the requested reduction in [real market value] would reduce taxpayers’ property tax liability.” Id. at 521 ; see also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322, 323 (2004) (ruling taxpayers not aggrieved where requested reduction in real market value will not affect property taxes); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000) (ruling that “[i]n requiring that taxpayers be ‘aggrieved’ under ORS 305.275, the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong”). | 16 | 53 |
Parks Westsac L.L.C. v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2011In Paris , the court concluded taxpayers were not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV still exceeded the property's maximum assessed value (MAV) and assessed value, and there was "[n]o showing * * * that the requested reduction in RMV would reduce taxpayers' property tax liability." Id. ; see also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev. , 17 OTR 322 , 323 (2004) (ruling that where a requested reduction in RMV will not affect property taxes taxpayers are not aggrieved); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 , 125 (2000) (ruling that the requirement in ORS 305.275 that for a taxpayer to be "aggrieve 2011In Paris, the court concluded taxpayers were not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV still exceeded the property’s maximum assessed value (MAV) and assessed value, and there was “[n]o showing * * * that the requested reduction in RMV would reduce taxpayers’ property tax liability.” Id.; see also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322, 323 (2004) (ruling that where a requested reduction in RMV will not affect property taxes taxpayers are not aggrieved); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000) (ruling that the requirement in ORS 305.275 that for a taxpayer to be “aggrieved[,] * | 3 | 4 |
Sherman v. Department of Revenuegreen2 sentences2015FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 150079C 2 assessed value and assessed value, and there was “[n]o showing * * * that the requested reduction in [real market value] would reduce taxpayers’ property tax liability.” Id. at 521 ; see also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322, 323 (2004) (ruling taxpayers not aggrieved where requested reduction in real market value will not affect property taxes); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000) (ruling that “[i]n requiring that taxpayers be ‘aggrieved’ under ORS 305.275, the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong”). 2011In Paris , the court concluded taxpayers were not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV still exceeded the property's maximum assessed value (MAV) and assessed value, and there was "[n]o showing * * * that the requested reduction in RMV would reduce taxpayers' property tax liability." Id. ; see also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev. , 17 OTR 322 , 323 (2004) (ruling that where a requested reduction in RMV will not affect property taxes taxpayers are not aggrieved); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 , 125 (2000) (ruling that the requirement in ORS 305.275 that for a taxpayer to be "aggrieve | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paris v. Dept. of Rev.
green
2 sentences2015FINAL DECISION OF DISMISSAL TC-MD 150079C 2 assessed value and assessed value, and there was “[n]o showing * * * that the requested reduction in [real market value] would reduce taxpayers’ property tax liability.” Id. at 521 ; see also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 322, 323 (2004) (ruling taxpayers not aggrieved where requested reduction in real market value will not affect property taxes); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev., 15 OTR 124, 125 (2000) (ruling that “[i]n requiring that taxpayers be ‘aggrieved’ under ORS 305.275, the legislature intended that the taxpayer have an immediate claim of wrong”). 2011In Paris , the court concluded taxpayers were not aggrieved because the requested reduction in RMV still exceeded the property's maximum assessed value (MAV) and assessed value, and there was "[n]o showing * * * that the requested reduction in RMV would reduce taxpayers' property tax liability." Id. ; see also Sherman v. Dept. of Rev. , 17 OTR 322 , 323 (2004) (ruling that where a requested reduction in RMV will not affect property taxes taxpayers are not aggrieved); Kaady v. Dept. of Rev. , 15 OTR 124 , 125 (2000) (ruling that the requirement in ORS 305.275 that for a taxpayer to be "aggrieve | 2 | 2011–2015 |
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.