Legal Opinion

Kalmbach Wagner Swine Research Farm v. Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1998No. 97-1196PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.

Appellants argue that, under Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 67 O.O.2d 296, 313 N.E.2d 14, the BOR can require a complainant to submit an income and expense statement if the *321complainant is an owner of income-producing property seeking a reduction in property value. Appellants further maintain that the BOR may dismiss the complaint if the complainant refuses to submit such data. Kalmbach replies that the BOR may not dismiss its complaint because Kalmbach has timely filed its complaint, appeared at all hearings, and provided evidence supporting its…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Stanjim Co. v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Snavely v. Erie County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Nucorp, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Swetland Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Gammarino v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Ginter v. Auglaize County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Kalmbach Wagner Swine Research Farm v. Wyandot Cty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Sightless Children Club v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State Ex Rel. FirstEnergy Corp. v. Lake County Board of RevisionOhio Court of Appeals · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API