Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Party is where they first articulate OSDE’s belief that the formula has corrected any harm done. Some of the introductory section is descriptive of the formula mechanics, though distorted, but the real argument with “proof” begins on page 13 through the end.
Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss is our rebuttal to the above. Part II and following.
Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion. Note author is not same attorney who authored the Motion above.
Plaintiffs’ MSJ . Part I and IVB are most relevant.
Defendants’ Counter MSJ Part II beginning at page 13 is most relevant
Plaintiffs’ Response to MSJ Part IV most relevant. At page 6
RPI Response filed in S Ct when overpaid districts sought original jurisdiction. Especially part IV
Petitioners (overpaid districts) brief in S Ct, especially affidavit of CFO Burkett.
Here is pleading in the first litigation where OTC introduced the Stroud decision, at page 5, about current year property tax assessment error, and claimed it was relevant to MVC.
Here is how we responded beginning at page 3.