Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ohio Presbyterian Homes v. Kinney

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1984No. Nos. 83-377 and 83-841Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLocher, J.

I

Since I believe the majority misconstrues the purpose of the tax exemption as defined in R.C. 5701.13, I concur in the judgment only. I agree that neither home has established its compliance with 5701.13(B). I further agree that appellant Friendship Village has not complied with R.C. 5701.13(D). With regard to 5701.13(D) and appellant Ohio Presbyterian Homes, however, the majority and I part company.

R.C. 5701.13(D) requires, inter alia, various listed services to be made available to residents as needed. This should not be interpreted as a requirement that the services be made available…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Philada Home Fund v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1966
  2. S.E.M. Villa II, Inc. v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API