Marion Cnty. Auditor v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor

    126 N.E.3d 80 (Ind. T.C. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Consequently, the " ‘[t]he only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon [the] court by the constitution or by statute.’ " Marion Cty. Auditor v. State, 33 N.E.3d 398, 400-01 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (quoting Pivarnik v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 636 N.E.2d 131, 137 (Ind. 1994) ). The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.

  2. Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor

    119 N.E.3d 245 (Ind. T.C. 2019)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that under the facts of that case, the maximum time for the Indiana Board to give notice of its final determination lapsed on the 366th day after the taxpayer filed its appeal with the Indiana Board

    Consequently, the " ‘[t]he only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon [the] court by the constitution or by statute.’ " Marion Cty. Auditor v. State, 33 N.E.3d 398, 400-01 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (quoting Pivarnik v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 636 N.E.2d 131, 137 (Ind. 1994) ). The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction.

  3. Daw v. Hancock Cnty. Assessor

    116 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. T.C. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Consequently, " ‘[t]he only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon [the] court by the constitution or by statute.’ " Marion Cty. Auditor v. State, 33 N.E.3d 398, 400-01 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (citation omitted). The Tax Court, pursuant to its enabling legislation, has subject matter jurisdiction over all "original tax appeals."

  4. J.S. Marten, Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue

    45 N.E.3d 534 (Ind. T.C. 2015)

    The Department is mistaken. “Subject matter jurisdiction ‘refers only to the power of a court to hear and decide a particular class of cases.’ ” Marion Cnty. Auditor v. State, 33 N.E.3d 398, 400 (Ind.Tax Ct.2015) (quoting Pivarnik v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 636 N.E.2d 131, 137 (Ind.1994) ). Subject matter jurisdiction does not depend upon the sufficiency or correctness of the averments in the petition, the stating of a good cause of action, or the validity of the petitioner's demand or right to relief. Id. (citing In re Adoption of H.S., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) ). “Rather, ‘[t]he only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the [petitioner] advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon [the] court by the constitution or by statute.’ ”