Legal Opinion

North Olmsted Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 17, 1990No. 89-955PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue in this case *99is whether the decision of the BTA was reasonable and lawful. We find that it was and affirm its decision.

In the absence of evidence of a recent arm’s-length sale between a willing buyer under no compulsion to buy and a willing seller under no compulsion to sell, the testimony of expert witnesses becomes necessary. State, ex rel. Park Investment Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410, 25 O.O. 2d 432, 195 N.E. 2d 908.

The determination of true value or fair market value of property for tax purposes is a question of fact which is primarily within the province…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Board of Revision v. FodorOhio Supreme Court · 1968

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Berea City School District Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. McNamaraOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
  3. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Cleveland Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API