Legal Opinion

Hile v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 9, 1989No. 88-254PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Initially, we note that appellants’ notice of appeal merely states that the BTA’s decision “is against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law.” This does not appear to satisfy the terms of R.C. 5717.04 that an appellant to this court must “* * * set forth the decision of the board appealed from and the errors therein complained of.” (Emphasis added.) Lawson Milk Co. v. Bowers (1961), 171 Ohio St. 418, 14 O.O. 2d 217,171 N.E. 2d 495; Richter Transfer Co. v. Bowers (1962), 174 Ohio St. 113, 21 O.O. 2d 369, 186 N.E. 2d 832. However, the commissioner does not assert that the notice of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Weiss v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Kihm v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Spithogianis v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Deerhake v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Hile v. Firmin, Sprague & Huffman Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Biskind v. HarrisOhio Court of Appeals · 2024
  5. Smith, Officer of Bob, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1992

2 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