Home/Ohio Supreme Court/City of Toledo v. City of Sylvania

City of Toledo v. City of Sylvania

328 N.E.2d 810, 42 Ohio St. 2d 367, 71 Ohio Op. 2d 331, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 502
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedMay 28, 1975
DocketNo. 74-686
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 328 N.E.2d 810 (City of Toledo v. City of Sylvania) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Toledo v. City of Sylvania, 328 N.E.2d 810, 42 Ohio St. 2d 367, 71 Ohio Op. 2d 331, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 502 (Ohio 1975).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Board of Tax Appeals, in arriving at the relative needs of Lncas County.subdivisions for the county’s 1974 local government fund deducted from the city of Sylvania, two items of $19,000 each which were shown in Sylvania’s general fund as transfers from its tree removal and replacement assessment fund and its ditch and drainage' assessment fund. Appellant, city of Toledo, contends that such deductions were unreasonable and unlawful because Sylvania’s tax budget shows no expenditures of these funds from the general fund.

The record of the hearing before the Board of Tax Appeals reveals that the two items of $19,000 each were identified in the Sylvania tax budget as transfers to the general fund and also identified as estimated expenditures in the budget for the purposes designated by the special funds from which the transfers were made.

Thus, there was evidence before the Board of Tax Ap[368]*368peals supporting estimated expenditures from the general fund relative to the total of $38,000 transferred to the general fund. That evidence supports the board’s conclusion that the estimated expenditures were for payment relative to the purposes designated in the special fund categories.

In view of the foregoing, the Board of Tax Appeals, in arriving at Sylvania’s relative needs for the 1974 local government fund, did not act unreasonably or unlawfully, and its decision is, therefore, affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Nichols v. Hinckley Township Board of Zoning Appeals
763 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2001)
Hebeler v. Colerain Township Board of Zoning Appeals
687 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1997)
Jones v. Chagrin Falls
1997 Ohio 253 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
Jones v. Village of Chagrin Falls
674 N.E.2d 1388 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
City of Dayton v. Whiting
673 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1996)
BP Oil Co. v. City of Dayton Board of Zoning Appeals
672 N.E.2d 256 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1996)
Liberty Savings Bank v. Kettering
655 N.E.2d 1322 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)
Sherman v. Dayton Board of Zoning Appeals
616 N.E.2d 937 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1992)
In Re Annexation of Certain Territory to Paulding
612 N.E.2d 477 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1992)
Chupka v. Saunders
504 N.E.2d 9 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986)
Kisil v. City of Sandusky
465 N.E.2d 848 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1984)
Roseman v. Village of Reminderville
470 N.E.2d 224 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1984)
Reed v. Rootstown Township Board of Zoning Appeals
458 N.E.2d 840 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
328 N.E.2d 810, 42 Ohio St. 2d 367, 71 Ohio Op. 2d 331, 1975 Ohio LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-toledo-v-city-of-sylvania-ohio-1975.