Legal Opinion
Zindle v. Summit County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 9, 1989No. 88-794PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Per curiam
In R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St. 3d 198, 201, 527 N.E. 2d 874, 877, we summarized the functions of the BTA and this court in property valuation appeals:
“The BTA need not adopt any expert’s valuation. It has wide discretion to determine the weight given to evidence and the credibility of witnesses before it. Its true value decision is a question of fact which will be disturbed by this court only when it affirmatively appears from the record that such decision is unreasonable or unlawful. Cardinal Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Fiddler v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1942
3Cited by21 opinions
- Freshwater v. Belmont County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Dublin Senior Community Ltd. Partnership v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- National Church Residence v. Licking County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Cleveland Board of Education v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- DAK, PLL v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2005
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.