Legal Opinion

Board of Education v. Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 6, 1988No. 87-364PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellants first argue that the BTA should have considered the sale of the property in 1985 in arriving at its valuation. Appellants’ failure to support their motion for reconsideration with an affidavit was contrary to the BTA’s rule, Ohio Adm. Code 5717-1-07(B).1 The BTA may adopt rules to govern proceedings before it. R.C. 5703.02(D). Unless it is unreasonable or in conflict with statute, a rule has the effect of law. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Glander (1948), 149 Ohio St. 120, 125, 36 O.O. 471, 474, 77 N.E. 2d 921, 924. The BTA’s failure to consider evidence *319of this sale was neither…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cardinal Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. GranderOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  3. National Tube Co. v. AyresOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Hibschman v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1943

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Dayton-Montgomery County Port Authority v. Montgomery County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Colonial Village, Ltd. v. Washington County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Worthington City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Amsdell v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Springfield Local Board of Education v. Summit County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1994

17 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