Case EQT Production Company, et al. v. County of Wise, Virginia, et al. Court Supreme Court of Virginia Judge Cleo
Case Stephen C. McCullough v. Town of Rocky Hill Court Connecticut Appellate Court Judge Seeley (Ned Lamont, 2022) Date Decided
Case Michelle Qureshi v. His Majesty The King Court Tax Court of Canada (Canada) Date Decided May 19, 2026 Citation
Case Al Gammarino, Trustee v. Hamilton County Auditor and Hamilton County Board of Revision Court Ohio Court of Appeals, First
Fourth District holds that a property company’s declaratory relief claim challenging tax assessments arose from the county assessor’s protected speech and petitioning under the anti-SLAPP statute, reversing the trial court’s denial of the county’s motion to strike.
Case Brian Heywood and Let’s Go Washington v. Steven Hobbs Court Washington Supreme Court Judge Per Curiam Date Decided May
Case Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc. v. Matthew R. Irby, State Tax Commissioner; Matthew R. Irby, State Tax Commissioner v.
California Court of Appeal reverses summary judgment for the Franchise Tax Board, holding that a Texas-based radiologist working remotely as a sole proprietor for one California company is not a ‘unitary business’ under regulation 17951-4(c).
Case PACE Organization of Rhode Island v. Sarah Frew, in her capacity as Tax Assessor for the City of East
Case WAFD, INC. (formerly known as WASHINGTON FEDERAL, INC.) v. IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION Court Idaho Supreme Court (Civil) Judge
Case Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Stacy Johnston, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Monty J. Martin
Case Washington Hospitality Association, et al. v. John Wilson, King County Assessor Court Washington Court of Appeals, Division One Judge
Case State Tax Assessor v. Fifth Generation, Inc. Court Maine Supreme Judicial Court Judge MEAD (John E. Baldacci, 2007) Date
Case Lawsuit Seeking Revocation of Disposition Refusing to Correct (Withholding) Corporate Tax Court Supreme Court of Korea (South Korea) Date
Second District (on rehearing) holds Santa Barbara’s modernized video users’ tax applies to internet video streaming services like Hulu, Disney+, and ESPN+, and rejects challenges under the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, the First Amendment, and California Constitution Article XIII C.