Ramsey v. County Board of Revision

48 N.E.2d 102, 141 Ohio St. 366, 141 Ohio St. (N.S.) 366, 25 Ohio Op. 476, 1943 Ohio LEXIS 425
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 7, 1943
Docket29357
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 48 N.E.2d 102 (Ramsey v. County Board 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
Ramsey v. County Board of Revision, 48 N.E.2d 102, 141 Ohio St. 366, 141 Ohio St. (N.S.) 366, 25 Ohio Op. 476, 1943 Ohio LEXIS 425 (Ohio 1943).

Opinion

Bv the Court.

The question presented to this court by the appeal is whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was “unreasonable” or “unlawful. ’ ’

The price paid by the appellant is not a controlling factor in determining the assessed valuation of the property on the tax duplicate. While it is shown by *368 ■the record that this sale was not a forced sale but one which was consummated after a general offering of the land to the public, this is but one of the factors to be considered. The valuation of these premises must necessarily bear some relation to valuations placed -on similar properties in the same locality, and the fact that appellant’s property has added value by reason of being a corner lot must also be given due •consideration.

The valuation fixed by the Board of Tax Appeals resulted in a reduction of the valuation of the appellant’s land to approximately 48 per cent of its original appraised value. This new figure is in line with the appellant’s own evidence of the present true value of property in the same vicinity. It is apparent from the record that the Board of Tax Appeals gave due •consideration to all evidence affecting the valuation of appellant’s property. This court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Tax Appeals, and we cannot conclude from the record in this case that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was “unreasonable” or “unlawful.” Its decision is therefore affirmed. ' ,

Decision affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Bell, Williams and Turner, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Walters v. Knox County Board of Revision
546 N.E.2d 932 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1989)
Ratner v. Stark County Board of Revision
491 N.E.2d 680 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986)
State ex rel. Park Investment Co. v. Board of Tax Appeals
175 Ohio St. (N.S.) 410 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1964)
Dixon v. Bowers
200 N.E.2d 646 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1963)
B. F. Keith Columbus Co. v. Board of Revision
74 N.E.2d 359 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1947)
Fair Store Co. v. Board of Revision
61 N.E.2d 209 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 N.E.2d 102, 141 Ohio St. 366, 141 Ohio St. (N.S.) 366, 25 Ohio Op. 476, 1943 Ohio LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramsey-v-county-board-of-revision-ohio-1943.