Legal Opinion

Masheter v. Boehm

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 20, 1974No. 73-468PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Paul "W. Bbown, J.

The central question presented in this case is, at what point will personal property be considered to have become merged with the land or structures on the land appropriated, so that it must be deemed a part of the realty taken, and be compensated for in the condemnation award. For reasons set forth below, we find that the trial and appellate courts applied an erroneous test of law to the facts before them in determining the scope of the appropriation, and therefore we must reverse and remand-*72the cause to the Probate Court for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.

The…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Jackson v. . State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
  2. Voorhis v. FreemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
  3. Singer v. Oil City Redevelopment AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
  4. Zangerle v. Republic Steel Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Holland Furnace Co. v. Trumbull Savings & Loan Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1939

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Levin v. City of Sheffield LakeOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Adair v. Koppers Co., Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1982
  3. State ex rel. Wasserman v. Fremont (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Patel v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 2012
  5. Cluxton v. Fifth Third Bank (In Re Cluxton)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit · 2005

42 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