CARSON CITY — A lower court ruling that rolled back taxes for a group of Lake Tahoe residents involved in a six-year battle over their land and property values was upheld Friday by the Nevada Supreme Court.

The high court decision favors dozens of Incline Village and Crystal Bay homeowners, on Tahoe's northeast shore, who had their taxes for the 2004-2005 tax year rolled back to 2002-2003 levels. That's in line with an earlier ruling that did the same for the year in between those two tax years.

A Carson City District Court decision that favored the homeowners had been appealed to the Supreme Court by state tax officials and by the Washoe County assessor. But high court justices sided with the homeowners who said their assessments were determined in an unconstitutional manner.

The Supreme Court said the state Board of Equalization had ruled against the homeowners and had accepted the Washoe assessments, but "erred by disregarding the taxpayers' arguments that the assessor used unconstitutional methods to determine the taxable values of their properties."

The court added that the state equalization panel had endorsed methods used by the assessor that already had been declared unconstitutional in the earlier case, decided in late 2006.

The ruling calls for refunds of all excess taxes paid for the 2004-2005 year plus 6 percent annual interest. A dollar amount wasn't spelled out in the ruling, although Norm Azevedo, the attorney for about 30 of the property owners, said the decision should mean refunds totaling nearly $300,000 just for his clients.

Several other lawsuits involving similar Tahoe tax issues have been filed, and an extension of the Supreme Court's reasoning in Friday's decision to those other cases could mean millions of dollars in eventual tax refund totals and interest payments.

"We're elated with this decision," Azevedo said. "It has been a long battle for these homeowners. I hope this resolves a dispute that has been going on for six years."

The Supreme Court's latest ruling mirrors its 2006 decision that found methods used by the assessor to consider lake views, beaches and other conditions in setting property values were invalid and unconstitutional because they weren't state-approved or uniformly used.