Meijer, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Meijer asserts the BTA decision was unreasonable and unlawful and must be reversed. Meijer argues initially that the BTA erred by adopting a “value in use” appraisal. Meijer does not define what it means by a value-in-use appraisal. However, “use value” as defined in The Appraisal of Real Estate (American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 9 Ed.1987) 20, is:
*185“[T]he value a specific property has for a specific use. Use value focuses on the contributory value of real estate to the enterprise of which it is a part, without regard to its highest and best use or the monetary amount that might be…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- State ex rel. Park Investment Co. v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Wolf v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Amsdell v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Dinner Bell Meats, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Satullo v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Dayton-Montgomery County Port Authority v. Montgomery County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
- Health Care REIT, Inc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.