Legal Opinion
General Motors Corp. v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 14, 1996No. 95-441PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Per curiam
In R.R.Z. Assoc. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 198, 201, 527 N.E.2d 874, 877, we stated:
*514“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 (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13, 73 O.O.2d 83, 336 N.E.2d 433, paragraphs two, three, and…
2Cases cited8 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
- State ex rel. Park Investment Co. v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cincinnati School District Board of Education v. Hamilton County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Global Knowledge Training, L.L.C. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Columbus City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2015
- NFI Metro Center II Associates v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.