Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cincinnati School District Board of Education v. Hamilton County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 2000No. 99-82Published

1DissentLundberg Stratton, J.

The majority admits that the failure to notify Candlewood of the valuation hearing deprived the BOR of jurisdiction to consider the complaint filed by the Cincinnati Board of Education. As a result, the majority finds that the decision of the BOR, increasing the value of Candle-wood’s property, is a nullity. The majority recognizes that the BOR has authority to reconsider its decisions. However, the majority then determines that the BOR had no authority to vacate this decision, even if void, because the appeal time had run. In support of its holding, the majority cites Hal Artz…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1986
  2. State Ex Rel. B & C MacHine Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Van DeRyt v. Van DeRytOhio Supreme Court · 1966
  4. State ex rel. Hughes v. CelesteOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Slone v. State Board of Embalmers & Funeral DirectorsOhio Court of Appeals · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API