Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In plaintiff's action against the county to reduce the tax assessment on his residential property, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim that the Appeals Board failed to asses land and improvements separately is without factual foundation; 2) plaintiff had no authority to limit the jurisdiction of the Appeals Board to a reassessment of only the value of the land; 3) the Appeals Board was permitted on its own initiative to reassess the value of the improvements on the land; 4) a total reappraisal was necessary to fulfill the Appeals Board's mandate to equalize property values; and 5) plaintiff's exclusive remedy was not a petition for a writ of mandate against the Appeals Board, but rather a complaint seeking a refund of taxes, a remedy plaintiff belatedly pursued against the county after it was barred by the statute of limitations.
Filed December 3, 2009
Opinion by Judge Boren
For Appellant: Burris, Schoenberg & Walden and E. Randol Schoenberg, in pro. per