” Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1102 (Alaska 2008) (citations omitted); State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647, 660 (Alaska 2014).Black, 187 P.3d at 1102 (alteration in original) (quoting Matanuska–Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State, 931 P.2d 391, 397 (Alaska 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Schmidt, 323 P.3d at 660.
" Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1102 (Alaska 2008) (citations omitted); State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647, 660 (Alaska 2014). Black, 187 P.3d at 1102 (alteration in original) (quoting Matanuska-Susitna Borough Sch. Dist. v. State, 931 P.2d 391, 397 (Alaska 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted); Schmidt, 323 P.3d at 660.
See May v. State, Com. Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 168 P.3d 873, 884 (Alaska 2007); see also Amerada Hess, 176 P.3d at 685. See, e.g., May, 168 P.3d at 883-84; Black v. Mun. of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1098-99, 1102-03 (Alaska 2008); Amerada Hess, 176 P.3d at 677-79, 683-85.
Halloran v. State, Div. of Elections , 115 P.3d 547, 550 (Alaska 2005).Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization , 187 P.3d 1096, 1099 (Alaska 2008). A. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion Or Err By Granting Bay Watch's Request For A Preliminary Injunction.
We have specifically held that taxing authorities are to be given broad discretion in selecting valuation methods.Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1099 (Alaska 2008) (citing ACS of Alaska, Inc. v. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska, 81 P.3d 292, 295 (Alaska 2003)); Nelson v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm `n, 186 P.3d 582, 585 (Alaska 2008) (citing Simpson v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 101 P.3d 605, 609 (Alaska 2004)).CH Kelly Trust v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 909 P.2d 1381, 1382 (Alaska 1996) (citing N. Star Alaska Hous. Corp. v. Fairbanks N. Star Borough Bd. of Equalization, 778 P.2d 1140, 1144 n. 7 (Alaska 1989)).
"In appeals of administrative agency decisions, we do not defer to superior court rulings." Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1099 (Alaska 2008) (citing ACS of Alaska, Inc. v. Regulatory Comm'n of Alaska, 81 P.3d 292, 295 (Alaska 2003)). APPENDIX Order
Alford v. State, Dep't of Admin., Div. of Ret. Benefits, 195 P.3d 118, 122 (Alaska 2008) (quoting Alyesku Pipeline Sen'. Co. v. DeShong, 77 P.3d 1227,'1231 (Alaska 2003)).Black v. Municipality of Anchorage, Bd. of Equalization, 187 P.3d 1096, 1099 (Alaska 2008). Whether the Board's factual findings, particularly the findings that the Assessor's valuation was grossly disproportionate and excessive by 40%, are "sufficient to permit appellate review is a legal question that we decide by exercising our independent judgment."