Legal Opinion

Reed v. County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 9, 1949No. 31770 and 31771PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.

Appellants’ complaints are that these cottages were classified as real estate instead of personal property for purposes of taxation. There is no contention that the cottages could not be taxed at all because they were located on land leased from the state. Cf. City of Toledo v. Jenkins et al., Bd. of Tax Appeals, 143 Ohio St., 141, 54 N. E. (2d), 656.

State lands adjacent to Buckeye Lake are leased as provided in Sections 471, 13965, 13966 and 13968, General Code. Section 13966, dealing with the leasing of such lands, provides in part:

“* * * provided always, however, that each and every…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Struble v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 1937
  2. City of Toledo v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Zangerle v. Republic Steel Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Zangerle v. Standard Oil Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Roseville Pottery, Inc. v. County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1948

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Funtime, Inc. v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Green Circle Growers, Inc. v. Lorain County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Kroger Co. v. SchneiderOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Shutter Bug, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Botkins Grain & Feed Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API