Legal Opinion

Columbus Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1999No. 1998-2027PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

We find the BTA’s decision to be unlawful and, consequently, reverse it.

Inner City argues that, under R.C. 5715.19(D), the complaint filed for tax year 1993 continued to be valid for 1996 because the value contested in the 1993 complaint was not finally decided until tax year 1996. The BOE responds that the 1993 complaint did not carry over for tax year 1996 and that Inner City *307needed to file a fresh complaint to contest the 1996 value. We agree with Inner City.

R.C. 5715.19(D) contains carryover-value provisions and continuing-complaint provisions. Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cincinnati School District Board of Education v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Concord Columbus, L.P. v. TestaOhio Court of Appeals · 1997

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. AERC Saw Mill Village, Inc. v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Yanega v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2018
  3. Fogg-Akron Associates, L.P. v. Summit County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. State ex rel. Mars Urban Solutions, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Fiscal Officer (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Cleveland Municipal School District Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2005

7 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