Legal Opinion

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1981No. 80-1361PublishedCited by 66 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

The sole question presented is whether the decision of the BTA was unreasonable or unlawful. R. C. 5717.04. We do not sit either as a “super” Board of Tax Appeals or as a trier of fact de novo. 3535 Salem Corp. v. Lindley (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 210, 212.

Youngstown contends that the BTA’s valuation of the subject property was, under the circumstances of this case, unreasonable and unlawful because said valuation was not ascertained by determining true value in terms of the probable selling *401price of the property in an arm’s length transaction between a willing buyer and willing seller. See…

2Cases cited5 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
  3. American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  4. 3535 Salem Corp. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Hibschman v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1943

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. R.R.Z. Associates v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Cincinnati School District Board of Education v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Simmons v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Worthington City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014

61 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