City of Cleveland v. Board of Tax Appeals
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentTaft, J.
Apparently the decision and opinion of the majority recognize that, if the words “public property used for a public purpose,” as found in Section 5351, General Code, were given their ordinary meaning, the tax exemptions sought in this case should be granted. There can be no other explanation of the requirement, found in four of the six paragraphs of the syllabus and emphasized throughout the opinion, that the property involved must be used “exclusively” for public purposes in order to be exempted from taxation. The word “exclusively” does not appear in Section 5351, one of the statutes under…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited23 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Struble v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1937
- Cooper v. RooseOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- City of Toledo v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- State Ex Rel. Williams v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- City of Zanesville v. RichardsOhio Supreme Court · 1855
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022