Hope v. Highland County Board

564 N.E.2d 433, 56 Ohio St. 3d 68, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1710
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided December 12, 1990·No. No. 90-179·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Adherence to the provisions of the appellate statutes is essential to confer jurisdiction upon the BTA to hear appeals. American Restaurant & Lunch Co. v. Bowers (1946), 147 Ohio St. 147, 34 O.O. 8, 70 N. E. 2d 93. R.C. 5717.01 is specific and mandatory. It requires that notice of appeal be filed by the appellant both with the board of revision and with the BTA. Failure to comply with the appellate statute is fatal to the appeal. Austin Co. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1989), 46 Ohio St. 3d 192, 546 N.E. 2d 404. See, also, Fineberg v. Kosydar (1975), 44 Ohio St. 2d 1, 73 O. O. 2d 1, 335 N.E. 2d 705; and Zephyr Room, Inc. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 287, 58 O.O. 67, 130 N.E. 2d 362.

The decision of the BTA is neither unreasonable nor unlawful and it is hereby affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

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

Hope v. Highland County Board, 564 N.E.2d 433, 56 Ohio St. 3d 68, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 1710 (Ohio 1990).

564 N.E.2d 433 (Hope v. Highland County Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Van De Hey v. Ashtabula Cty. Aud.
2023 Ohio 346 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
Ross v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)
2018 Ohio 4746 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2018)
Reserve Building Associates, Ltd. v. McCormack
657 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)