Ross v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Ross v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision

51 N.E.3d 578, 146 Ohio St. 3d 12, 2015 Ohio 3443

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 28, 2015

DocketNo. 2013-1951

StatusPublished

This text of 51 N.E.3d 578 (Ross v. Cuyahoga 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

Ross v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, 51 N.E.3d 578, 146 Ohio St. 3d 12, 2015 Ohio 3443 (Ohio 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in light of Schwartz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 143 Ohio St.3d 496, 2015-Ohio-3431, 39 N.E.3d 1223, which addressed a property located in close proximity to the property at issue here and which held that a recent arm’s-length sale price of $5,000 was the value of the property. On remand, the BTA shall consider the $5,000 válue of the Schwartz property along with all the other evidence currently in the record to determine the value of the property at issue.

Decision vacated and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Kennedy and French, JJ., dissent.

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

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in light of Schwartz v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 143 Ohio St.3d 496, 2015-Ohio-3431, 39 N.E.3d 1223, which addressed a property located in close proximity to the property at issue here and which held that a recent arm’s-length sale price of $5,000 was the value of the property. On remand, the BTA shall consider the $5,000 válue of the Schwartz property along with all the other evidence currently in the record to determine the value of the property at issue.

Decision vacated and cause remanded.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and O’Neill, JJ., concur. Kennedy and French, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 N.E.3d 578, 146 Ohio St. 3d 12, 2015 Ohio 3443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-cuyahoga-county-board-of-revision-ohio-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack