King Dev. Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

King Dev. Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision

1997 Ohio 198, 78 Ohio St. 3d 483

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 21, 1997

Docket1996-0541

StatusPublished

This text of 1997 Ohio 198 (King Dev. Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision) 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

King Dev. Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 1997 Ohio 198, 78 Ohio St. 3d 483 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 483.]

KING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. CHATTERTON CLUB, L.P. APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. C.O.A. HOUSING, INC., APPELLANT, v. VAN WERT COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as King Dev. Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 1997-Ohio-198.] Unauthorized practice of law—Preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision constitute the practice of law. (Nos. 96-541, 96-542 and 96-545—Submitted April 1, 1997—Decided May 21, 1997.) APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 93-T-28, 93-T-29, 93-T-49, 93-T- 50, 93-T-51 and 93-T-52, in case No. 96-541. APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 93-A-172, in case No. 96-542. APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 94-P-759, in case No. 96-545. __________________ Todd W. Sleggs, for appellants King Development Co., Crofton Partners I, Crofton Partners II, Chatterton Club, L.P., and C.O.A. Housing, Inc. James R. Gorry, Assistant County Prosecutor, for appellees Franklin County Board of Revision and Franklin County Auditor and Van Wert County Board of Revision and Van Wert Auditor. Teaford, Rich, Coffman & Wheeler, Jeffrey A. Rich and Karol Cassell Fox, for appellees Board of Education of the Reynoldsburg City School District Board of Education and the Groveport Madison Local School District Board of Education. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 1} Sua sponte, the causes are consolidated. The orders of the Board of Tax Appeals are affirmed on the authority of Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___, decided today. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 78 Ohio St.3d 483.]

KING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. CHATTERTON CLUB, L.P. APPELLANT, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. C.O.A. HOUSING, INC., APPELLANT, v. VAN WERT COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as King Dev. Co. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 1997-Ohio-198.] Unauthorized practice of law—Preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision constitute the practice of law. (Nos. 96-541, 96-542 and 96-545—Submitted April 1, 1997—Decided May 21, 1997.) APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 93-T-28, 93-T-29, 93-T-49, 93-T- 50, 93-T-51 and 93-T-52, in case No. 96-541. APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 93-A-172, in case No. 96-542. APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 94-P-759, in case No. 96-545. __________________ Todd W. Sleggs, for appellants King Development Co., Crofton Partners I, Crofton Partners II, Chatterton Club, L.P., and C.O.A. Housing, Inc. James R. Gorry, Assistant County Prosecutor, for appellees Franklin County Board of Revision and Franklin County Auditor and Van Wert County Board of Revision and Van Wert Auditor. Teaford, Rich, Coffman & Wheeler, Jeffrey A. Rich and Karol Cassell Fox, for appellees Board of Education of the Reynoldsburg City School District Board of Education and the Groveport Madison Local School District Board of Education. __________________ SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 1} Sua sponte, the causes are consolidated. The orders of the Board of Tax Appeals are affirmed on the authority of Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___, decided today. MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1997 Ohio 198, 78 Ohio St. 3d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-dev-co-v-franklin-cty-bd-of-revision-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack