{
  "id": 11238313,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF: STERLING DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC. FROM THE APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY BY TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY FOR 1997",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re the Appeal of Sterling Diagnostic Imaging, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1999-02-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA98-538",
  "first_page": "393",
  "last_page": "395",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 N.C. App. 393"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-287",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "449 S.E.2d 196",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "200"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 551",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524856
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "558"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0551-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 4354,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.748350386451102
    },
    "sha256": "03f3101773fab80b61914148dca7eae6963b05452bba22cec3188c074e6dca98",
    "simhash": "1:71b97c7c5c1d91c8",
    "word_count": 667
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:15.604309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "LEWIS, WALKER, and TIMMONS-GOODSON, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF: STERLING DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC. FROM THE APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY BY TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY FOR 1997"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThis appeal concerns the 1997 real property tax valuation of a manufacturing facility owned by Sterling Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. (\u201cSterling\u201d) and located in Transylvania County (\u201cthe County\u201d). Sterling appealed the valuation to the County Board of Equalization and Review (\u201cthe Board\u201d) pursuant to section 105-287 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The Board denied Sterling\u2019s request to reduce the valuation, and Sterling appealed the decision to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission (\u201cthe Commission\u201d), sitting as the State Board of Equalization and Review. The County filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that \u201cSterling\u2019s pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.\u201d Following a hearing, the Commission granted the County\u2019s motion.\nAfter reviewing the record and briefs and after hearing oral arguments, we conclude that the allegations in Sterling\u2019s pleadings were sufficient to state a claim for relief under section 105-287 of the General Statutes.\nA taxpayer requesting modification of a tax valuation in a non-reappraisal year must allege that a justifiable cause under section 105-287 exists. MAO/Pines Assoc. v. New Hanover County Bd. of Equalization, 116 N.C. App. 551, 558, 449 S.E.2d 196, 200 (1994). Section 105-287 states that the tax assessor shall adjust a valuation to:\n(1) Correct a clerical or mathematical error[;]\n(2) Correct an appraisal error resulting from a misapplication of the schedules, standards, and rules used in the county\u2019s most recent general reappraisal or horizontal adjustment^ or]\n(3)Recognize an increase or decrease in the value of the property resulting from a factor other than . . . [n]ormal, physical depreciation of improvements[,] [inflation, deflation, or other economic changes affecting the county in generalf.]\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-287(a),(b) (1997).\nIn its Application for Hearing before the Commission, Sterling asserted that the 1997 valuation was erroneous, arbitrary and illegal because (1) it did not reflect true value; (2) it was the result of an arbitrary or illegal appraisal method; (3) it substantially exceeded true value; (4) it failed to address the factors impacting the value of real property under section 105-317 of the North Carolina General Statutes; (5) it was premised on certain clerical, mathematical and/or appraisal errors; and (6) it failed to properly adjust the value of the property based on its physical condition and layout, as well as its economic and functional obsolescence. Sterling adequately stated a claim under section 105-287 of the General Statutes, and the Commission erred in dismissing Sterling\u2019s appeal.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the order dismissing Sterling\u2019s appeal is reversed and this matter remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nPanel consisting of:\nLEWIS, WALKER, and TIMMONS-GOODSON, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hunton & Williams, by Jean Gordon Carter, Christopher G. Browning, Jr., and Albert Diaz, for taxpayer-appellant.",
      "Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, L.L.P., by Charles C. Meeker, for Transylvania County-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF: STERLING DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC. FROM THE APPRAISAL OF REAL PROPERTY BY TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY FOR 1997\nNo. COA98-538\n(Filed 16 February 1999)\nTaxation\u2014 appeal to Property Tax Commission \u2014 statement of claim \u2014 adequate\nAn appeal to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission, sitting as the State Board of Equalization and Review, was erroneously dismissed for failure to state a claim where the taxpayer asserted that the valuation was erroneous, arbitrary and illegal because it did not reflect true value, it was the result of an arbitrary or illegal appraisal method, it substantially exceeded true value, it failed to address the factors impacting the value of real property under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 105-317, it was premised on clerical, mathematical and/or appraisal errors, and it failed to properly adjust the value of the property based on its physical condition and layout as well as its economic and functional obsolescence. The taxpayer adequately stated a claim under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 105-287.\nAppeal by taxpayer from order entered 25 March 1998 by the North Carolina Property Tax Commission, sitting as the State Board of Equalization and Review. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 January 1999.\nHunton & Williams, by Jean Gordon Carter, Christopher G. Browning, Jr., and Albert Diaz, for taxpayer-appellant.\nParker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, L.L.P., by Charles C. Meeker, for Transylvania County-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0393-01",
  "first_page_order": 427,
  "last_page_order": 429
}