Cited by

v. County of Renville, (quotation omitted).

d 545, 551 (Minn. 2007).

3 When a taxpayer challenges a county’s valuation of real property by filing a petition in the tax court, see Minn. Stat. § 278.01 (2024), there is a prima facie presumption that the assessor’s valuation was proper, and “the burden is on the party appealing that assessment to show that it is excessive.” (); see also Minn. Stat. § 271.06, subd.

v. County of Renville, (factual findings).

Inland Edinburgh Festival, d 821, 825 (Minn. 2020)

v. County of Renville, (quoting Tousignant v. St.

Our review of a final order of the tax court is “limited.”

of Renville, (holding that the tax court erred when it failed to make “any findings or conclusions related to .

S. Minn. Beet Sugar Coop v. County of Renville , , 557 (Minn. 2007).

v. County of Renville , , 558 (Minn. 2007) (explaining that "the taxpayer has the burden of proof at trial" to show that an assessment is invalid).

v. County of Renville (SMBSC), see also Minn. Stat. § 271.10, subd.

of Renville, (“[A] prima facie case simply means one that prevails in the absence of evidence invalidating it.” (emphasis added) (quoting Tousignant v. St.

of Renville, -56 (Minn. 2007).

of Renville (SMBSC), -59 (Minn. 2007).

of Renville, (explaining that the tax court must determine market value based on evidentiary support in the record).

of Renville (SMBSC), see also Eden Prairie Mall, LLC v. Cnty.