Legal Opinion
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Lake County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided January 7, 1998No. Nos. 96-38, 96-39, 96-40, 96-41, 96-42 and 96-43PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPfeifek, J.
We find that the appellants in these cases substantially complied with the requirements of R.C. 5715.13 and 5715.19 in seeking a decrease in the valuation of their property, and we therefore overrule the determinations of the Board of Tax Appeals.
The BTA based its decision against CEI on Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 236, 67 O.O.2d 296, 298, 313 N.E.2d 14, 16, wherein this court found that the DTE Form 1 in use at that time was “clearly designed to elicit information required by R.C. 5715.19 and 5715.13,” and that a complaint lacking certain…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stanjim Co. v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- Akron Standard Division of Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Renner v. Tuscarawas County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Lucas County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
3Cited by12 opinions
- Groveport Madison Local Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Sapina v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Mason City School District Board of Education v. Warren County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2014
- Diley Ridge Med. Ctr. v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- Princeton City School District Board of Education v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.