Legal Opinion
New Winchester Gardens, Ltd. v. Franklin County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 8, 1997No. 96-1755PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Per curiam
New Winchester’s first argument is that the BTA erred in its application of the doctrine of res judicata to preclude certain evidence in this matter. We disagree.
The relevant portion of the BTA decision states:
“This Board and the Court of Appeals, based upon the probative evidence and record before them determined that the 1984 sale constituted an arm’s-length sale, and that the sale price was the market value of such property at the time of that sale, as well as specifically applicable to the tax year 1986. Those ultimate fact and legal determinations are now applicable and conclusively…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Grava v. Parkman TownshipOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Heiser v. WoodruffSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Goodson v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Whitehead v. General Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1969
- Thompson v. WingOhio Supreme Court · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Cummins Property Services, L.L.C. v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Federated Management Co. v. Coopers & LybrandOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Worthington City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Akron City School District Board of Education v. Summit County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2014
- Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education v. Delaware County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.