Legal Opinion

Villa Park Ltd. v. Clark County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1994No. 92-1488PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

From our review of the record, the decision of the BTA is unreasonable and unlawful. The decision is vacated and the cause is remanded for further consideration.

The BTA found, and neither party disputes, that the best method of valuing subsidized apartments is the income approach.

The second paragraph of the syllabus of Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 16, 523 N.E.2d 826, one of the three leading cases involving valuation of subsidized apartments, states:

“An apartment property built and operated under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Alliance Towers, Ltd. v. Stark County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Wynwood Apartments, Inc. v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  3. Canton Towers, Ltd. v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Freshwater v. Belmont County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Olmsted Falls Village Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Ohio Region Senior Citizens Housing Corp. v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Jefferson Industries Corp. v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016

3 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