Masheter v. Wood
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCoRrigaN, J.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the admission of opinion testimony of expert appraisal witnesses, averring the reasonable probability of a zoning change to a higher nse classification, is competent and admissible in a land appropriation proceeding. We hold that it is not.
The rule of valuation in land appropriation proceedings in Ohio is not based upon “what the property is worth for any particular use but what it is worth generally for any and all uses for which it might be suitable, including the most valuable uses to which it can reasonably and practically be adapted.”…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sowers v. SchaefferOhio Supreme Court · 1951
- Masheter v. HoffmanOhio Supreme Court · 1973
- City of Euclid v. Lakeshore Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1956
- Masheter v. Mariemont, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1971
- Board of Edn. of Wilmington v. GrahamOhio Court of Appeals · 1968
3Cited by7 opinions
- Masheter v. KebeOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Allen Hogan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC v. 4.895 Acres of Land, More or LessCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
- Toledo Edison Co. v. RollerOhio Court of Appeals · 1974
- Hogan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.