Legal Opinion

Village of Whitehouse v. Tracy

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1995No. 94-1045PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

Whitehouse claims exemption for the entire water-well field under R.C. 5709.08, which provides in pertinent part that “public property used exclusively for a public purpose, shall be exempt from taxation.”

*180In Carney v. Cleveland (1962), 173 Ohio St. 56, 18 O.O.2d 256, 180 N.E.2d 14, paragraph one of the syllabus, we set forth the conditions under which property may be exempted pursuant to R.C. 5709.08: “ * * * (1) the property must be public property, (2) the use thereof must be for a public purpose, and (3) the property must be used exclusively for a public purpose.” See Bd. of Park Commrs.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. City of Toledo v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  2. City of Cleveland v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. HillAppellate Court of Illinois · 1961
  4. Board of Education of the South-Western City Schools v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. City of Cleveland v. PerkOhio Supreme Court · 1972

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. City of Cincinnati v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2015
  2. City of Parma Heights v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Talawanda City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Whitehouse v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995

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

Powered by the Exa API