Notes of Decisions

The water system in a planned unit development was properly assessed by the Department of Revenue as having value for which taxes should have been assessed. Brooks Resources v. Dept. of Rev., 276 Or 1177, 538 P2d 312 (1976)

In valuing a railroad, the weight to be given each approach customarily used (cost, stock and debt, and income) and the variation among appraisers in the minutiae of their methods, if in dispute, are left to the court to consider. Burlington Northern v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 19 (1979), as modified by 291 Or 729, 635 P2d 347 (1981)

Land infested with tansy ragwort and therefore not used to obtain a profit was properly disqualified for special assessment at true cash value for farm use. Shepherd v. Dept. of Rev., 8 OTR 122 (1979)

While it is allowable to use only one approach in valuing property, whether in any given assessment one approach should be used exclusive of the others or is preferable to another or to combination of approaches is question of fact to be determined by the court. Pacific Power and Light Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 529, 596 P2d 912 (1979)

Central assessment statutes create exception to public property tax exemption outlined in ORS 307.090. Pacificorp Power Marketing v. Dept. of Revenue, 340 Or 204, 131 P3d 725 (2006)

Law Review Citations

26 WLR 714 (1990)

Notes of Decisions

Programs administered by Department of Revenue that allow preferential assessment for farm and forestland are not "programs affecting land use" and are not subject to requirement of statewide goal and local comprehensive plan compliance under ORS 197.180. Springer v. LCDC, 111 Or App 262, 826 P2d 54 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Application of Article XI, section 11b of Oregon Constitution to this chapter, (1990) Vol 46, p 388

Law Review Citations

5 EL 516 (1975)