Legal Opinion

Lakeside Avenue Ltd. Partnership v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 5, 1996No. 94-1998PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The issue for our consideration is whether the BTA’s valuation of the property was unlawful or unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we find that the BTA’s decision was both unlawful and unreasonable, and, accordingly, we reverse the decision of the BTA.

R.C. 5713.03 provides, in part:

“In determining the true value of any tract, lot, or parcel of real estate under this section, if such tract, lot, or parcel has been the subject of an arm’s length sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer within a reasonable length of time, either before or after the tax lien date, the auditor…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Blodgett v. BlodgettOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Fruhauf Southwest Garment Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1953
  4. Board of Revision v. FodorOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  5. R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Cincinnati School District Board of Education v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Strongsville Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Columbus City School District Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Cincinnati Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Pingue v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1999

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API