Legal Opinion

Cincinnati School District Board of Education v. Hamilton County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 2000No. 99-82PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Per curiam

The BOE contends that the BTA had no authority to set aside the BOR’s order of August 18,1997. We agree.

A timely complaint against the valuation of the property was filed by the BOE seeking an increase in taxable value of $151,900 for tax year 1996. R.C. 5715.19(B) provides that when a complaint is filed by someone other than the owner and the amount of the stated undervaluation is at least $17,500 the auditor is to give notice of the complaint to the property owner. R.C. 5715.19(B) further provides that within thirty days after receiving the notice the property owner may file a complaint…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Patton v. DiemerOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Van DeRyt v. Van DeRytOhio Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Dews v. FloydCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1967
  5. State ex rel. Borsuk v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1972

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

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Oil & Gas CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Knickerbocker Properties, Inc. XLII v. Delaware County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Colonial Village Ltd. v. Washington County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Gaston v. Medina County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  5. State ex rel. Ragozine v. ShakerOhio Supreme Court · 2002

40 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