City of Brooklyn v. Cuyahoga County Budget Commission

31 Ohio Law Rep. 77
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in City of Brooklyn v. Cuyahoga County Budget Commission. Read the opinion of the Court — 2 Ohio St. 2d 181
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided June 2, 1965·No. 38938, 38939 and 38940·Published

Opinion

Schneider, Judge.

1. In an appeal, under Section 5717.-04, Revised Code, to the Supreme Court or a Court of Appeals from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals which apportions the undivided local government fund of a county under the provisions of Section 5705.37, Revised Code, the only ap-pellees necessary to confer jurisdiction of the appeal on the court are the parties joined in the proceedings before the board. (Reuben McMillan Free Library Assn. v. Mahoning County Budget Commission, 175 OhioSt. 91, overruled to the extent inconsistent herewith.)

2. In an appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals from an apportionment of an undivided local government fund by a county budget commission, under Sections 5739.25 and 5705.37, Revised Code, the board hears and determines the matter de novo in the place of, and as if it were, the budget Commission, and every subdivision of the county entitled to participate in that fund is a necessary party thereto. A decision of the board pursuant to proceedings in which all necessary parties were not joined is unreasonable and unlawful.

Decision reversed.

Smith, Matthias, O’Neill and Brown, JJ., concur. Taft, C. J., and Herbert, J., concur in paragraph two of the syllabus and in the judgment but dissent from paragraph one of the syllabus. Smith, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Zimmerman, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Brooklyn v. Cuyahoga County Budget Commission, 31 Ohio Law Rep. 77 (Ohio 1965).

31 Ohio Law Rep. 77 (City of Brooklyn v. Cuyahoga County Budget Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.