Legal Opinion

Renner v. Tuscarawas County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 1, 1991No. 90-973PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Per curiam

First, as to the jurisdictional question, the board argues that an appellant must file a complete copy of the notice of appeal with it to vest the BTA with jurisdiction. The Renners respond that the documents they filed with the board sufficiently advised the board of the nature and substance of the appeal. We agree with the Renners.

In Akron Standard Div. v. Lindley (1984), 11 Ohio St. 3d 10, 11 OBR 9, 462 N.E. 2d 419, we applied a substantial compliance test to determine whether to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with an appellate pro*144cedure statute. If the omitted requirement runs to…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Akron Standard Division of Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Park Ridge Co. v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1973

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Snavely v. Erie County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Hardy v. Delaware County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Lake County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Johnson v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2018

15 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