Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pingue v. Franklin County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 20, 1999No. 98-1494Published

1DissentCook, J.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s decision to reverse the Board of Tax Appeals in this case.

The majority believes that the R.C. 5713.03 presumption (that a recent sale price is the best evidence of true value) applies to Pingue’s transaction involving the price that he paid for the purchase of multiple, noncontiguous condominium units, each of which is deemed to be a separate parcel for purposes of real estate taxation. See R.C. 5311.11. The presumption in R.C. 5713.03, however, does not apply to Pingue’s multiple-parcel purchase because the statutory scheme prefers the valuation of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Mahoning County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Park Ridge Co. v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Banbury Village, Inc. v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API