Hotel Statler v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants’ first claim is that the BTA erred in rejecting the adjustments Koeinski made to the value he determined using the income capitalization approach. For reasons which will be discussed later, we -will be considering only tax year 1991.
Ohio Adm.Code 5705-3-03(D)(2) describes the income approach to value as follows: “The value is estimated by capitalizing the net income after expenses, including normal vacancies and credit losses.” For a definition of “income approach,” The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal (American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers 1984) 159, refers to the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Witt Co. v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Throckmorton v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Health Care REIT, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- Board of Education of the Vandalia-Butler City School District v. Montgomery County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- Soin v. Greene County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Hotel Statler v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.