Legal Opinion

Strongsville Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1997No. 95-2625PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

Strongsville, first, argues that the BTA should have valued the two main shopping buildings as individual shopping centers. It claims that each building is an economic unit and that the BTA should have sought the highest possible value for the complex. We disagree.

In Park Ridge Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, supra, paragraph two of the syllabus, we stated:

“The true value for real property may well depend on its potential use as an economic unit. That unit may include multiple parcels, or it may be a part of a larger parcel, on the auditor’s records. The boundaries of that unit may…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Ace Steel Baling, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Witt Co. v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Wolf v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Columbus City School District Board of Education v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Bedford Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Fayette County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. TBC Westlake, Inc. v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Murray & Co. Marina, Inc. v. Erie County Board of RevisionOhio Court of Appeals · 1997

13 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