Weed v. Board of Revision

Ohio Supreme Court

Weed v. Board of Revision

372 N.E.2d 338, 53 Ohio St. 2d 20, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 63, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 482

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 1978

DocketNo. 77-429

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 372 N.E.2d 338 (Weed v. 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

Weed v. Board of Revision, 372 N.E.2d 338, 53 Ohio St. 2d 20, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 63, 1978 Ohio LEXIS 482 (Ohio 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant’s contention, in essence, is that Section 1, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, is paramount to all other provisions of the Ohio Constitution and precludes the taxation of his real property inasmuch as he lias not consented to such taxation.

[21]*21However, “[t]he power to tax is an attribute of'Sovereignty and in this state is included in the general legislative power which is conferred by Section 1, Article H of the Constitution, upon the general assembly without. limitation.” Saviors v. Smith (1920), 101 Ohio St. 132. See, also, Section 2 of Article XII, Ohio Constitution.

This court has long recognized that “[i]t is our duty to give a construction to the constitution as will make.it consistent with itself, and will harmonize and give effect, to all its various provisions.” Hill v. Higdon (1855), 5 Ohio St. 243, 247.

Taxation of real property being constitutionally authorized, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is both reasonable and lawful and is, therefore, affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

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