Lowe v. Washoe County, 627 F.3d 1151

Plaintiffs own residential property in Incline Village and Crystal Bay and act as putative class representatives for ~9,000 property owners.
They sued Washoe County, the County Assessor, and the County Treasurer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging 2008-09 property valuations violated Nevada Constitution and Due Process.
District court dismissed under the Tax Injunction Act, finding an adequate state remedy available to challenge ad valorem taxes.
Nevada provides four levels of review for property-tax challenges, with Board of Equalization, State Board of Equalization, trial court, and Nevada Supreme Court as avenues.
Prior state litigation had invalidated the Assessor’s methods for earlier years (Bakst and Barta), but did not declare the 2007 appraisal unlawful, and ongoing state cases concerning later years remained pending.
The court reviews de novo whether the Tax Injunction Act divests jurisdiction and whether the state remedy is plain, adequate, and efficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Tax Injunction Act bar federal action given an adequate state remedy?	Lowe argues state remedy is inadequate due to class-action limits and ongoing wasteful suits.	Washoe County argues Nevada's state review provides a plain, speedy and efficient remedy for individual taxpayers.	No; state remedy adequate for individuals, so Act bar applies.
Is Nevada’s lack of a class-action mechanism rendering the state remedy inefficient under the Act?	Plaintiffs claim inefficiency due to no class-wide relief for all taxpayers.	Remedy need only be adequate for individuals, not as efficient as a class action.	Not unserious; class action absence does not defeat adequacy.
Does the multiplicity-of-suits exception to the Act apply here?	Repeated state challenges over years show risk of multiple suits; federal relief may be warranted.	Bakst and Barta addressed only 2002, and 2007-08 valuations are not previously declared unconstitutional by state courts; no ongoing unconstitutional tax at federal level.	No; multiplicity exception not triggered because prior state rulings did not declare federal-issue invalidity for the 2007 appraisal.
Does alleged bias of the State Board of Equalization defeat the adequacy of the state remedy?	Board is adverse to taxpayers and is the primary fact-finder.	State courts can review Board bias; remedy remains adequate.	No; bias does not undermine the state-remedy adequacy under the Act.

Rosewell v. LaSalle Nat'l Bank, 450 U.S. 503 (1981) (limits of plain, speedy and efficient remedy under the Act)
Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393 (1982) (procedural criteria for state remedies under the Act)
Mandel v. Hutchinson, 494 F.2d 364 (4th Cir. 1974) (state remedy need not be the best; adequacy suffices)
Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Bennett, 916 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1990) (state remedy plain if certain; not plain if uncertain)
Tully v. Griffin, 429 U.S. 68 (1976) (historical roots of the Tax Injunction Act)
National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 515 U.S. 582 (1995) (multiplicity-of-suits exception limits to real risk of multiple suits)
Patel v. City of San Bernardino, 310 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2002) (uncertainty when a state tax continues after a decision; federal relief possible)
Bakst, State ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Bakst (2006) (Nevada constitutional equal/uniform taxation; base-year reappraisal issue)
Barta, State ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization v. Barta (2008) (continuing constitutional challenges to base-year appraisals)