Legal Opinion

Foods v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1997No. Nos. 96-1577, 96-1578, 96-1579 and 96-1580PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Per curiam

Buckeye Foods, first, claims that Cleveland waived the standing issue by not raising it at the BOR, its first opportunity to challenge Buckeye Foods’ status. Cleveland replies that standing is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. We agree with Cleveland.

According to New Boston Coke Corp. v. Tyler (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 216, 218, 513 N.E.2d 302, 305, “ * * * the issue of standing, inasmuch as it is jurisdictional in nature, may be raised at any time during the pendency of the proceedings. See United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co. (1956), 351 U.S. 192, 197 [76 S.Ct. 763, 767, 100 L.Ed. 1081,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
  2. Stanjim Co. v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  3. New Boston Coke Corp. v. TylerOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Middleton v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Thomas v. City of ColumbusOhio Court of Appeals · 1987

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. SusterOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Toledo Public Schools Board of Education v. Lucas County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Safest Neighborhood Assn. v. Athens Bd. of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. Alesi v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014

25 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