Legal Opinion

Meijer, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 5, 1996No. 95-510PublishedCited by 20 opinions

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

  1. Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. State ex rel. Park Investment Co. v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Wolf v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Amsdell v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. 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

  1. Satullo v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Dayton-Montgomery County Port Authority v. Montgomery County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Meijer Stores Ltd. Partnership v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc. v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API