Legal Opinion

Webb Corp. v. Lucas County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1995No. 94-1414PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

In Proposition of Law One, Webb argues that the record did not support the BTA’s conclusion that Toledo was experiencing a revitalization and that the BTA could not discredit Garvin’s report on this basis. We agree with Webb. However, we conclude that, even though Garvin’s report cannot be discredited on this basis, the BTA reasonably and lawfully granted greater weight to Szabo’s report and testimony, and we affirm its decision.

According to R.R.Z. Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 201, 527 N.E.2d 874, 877:

“The BTA need not adopt any expert’s valuation. It has…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Witt Co. v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. National Church Residence v. Licking County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. TBC Westlake, Inc. v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Olmsted Falls Village Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. General Motors Corp. v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996

6 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