Opinion ID: 3013364
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: I., 208 F. Supp. 2d 545, 553 (D.V.I. 2002).

Text: At this time, the Government of the Virgin Islands does not contest the District Court’s resolution of the merits. Instead, the government contends the District Court lacked jurisdiction because this dispute arises not under federal law, but solely under Virgin Islands law.4 _________________________________________________________________ 2. For present purposes, we need not determine what constitutes actual value. We note, however, that historically, [t]he phrases ‘saleable value,’ ‘actual value,’ ‘cash value,’ and others used in the directions of assessing officers, all mean the same thing, and are designed to effect the same purpose. Cummings v. Merchants’ Nat’l Bank , 101 U.S. 153, 162 (1879). 3. Plaintiff also contends defendants are in breach of a settlement agreement reached in an earlier case governing Virgin Islands tax assessment. See Berne Corp. v. Gov’t of the V.I. , 120 F. Supp. 2d 528 (D.V.I. 2000), for a discussion of that case. 4. The Government of the Virgin Islands also argues the District Court abused its discretion in rejecting plaintiff ’s argument that the injunction should be denied because plaintiff lacks clean hands. The government contends plaintiff failed to pursue avenues for relief within the Virgin Islands and insufficiently cooperated with Virgin Islands officials in this matter. We see no abuse of discretion. 3