Legal Opinion
Gammarino v. Hamilton County Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 8, 1997No. 97-164PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
Appellant raises two primary arguments: that an unrelated lay ' person may not file and prosecute a complaint before a board of revision, and that such representation by a lay person constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Appellees have not filed briefs with this court.
Subsequent to the BTA’s decision in this matter on January 3,1997, we decided Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932, which involved a real estate valuation complaint filed with a board of revision by a nonattorney. In Sharon Village Ltd., the sole question before us…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Stanjim Co. v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
3Cited by7 opinions
- State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- IBM Corp. v. Franklin Cty., Unpublished Decision (11-30-2006)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2006
- Gammarino v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- B.O.E., the Whitehall v. Franklin Cty. Bd., Unpublished Decision (3-19-2002)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.