Board of Revision v. Fodor

Ohio

Court: Supreme Court of Ohio

Citations: 15 Ohio St. 2d 52, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 30, 239 N.E.2d 25, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 370

Decision Date: 6/19/1968

Docket Number: No. 68-88

Jurisdiction: OH

Bluebook Citation: Board of Revision v. Fodor, 15 Ohio St. 2d 52, 44 Ohio Op. 2d 30, 239 N.E.2d 25, 1968 Ohio LEXIS 370 (Ohio 1968)

More Cases: Ohio decisions from 1968

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 75 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

Ohio56

Ohio Ct. App.18

Ohio App. Ct.1

Most recently cited by10

2024Lake Cove Apts., L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision Ohio Ct. App.
2023MP 11868 Clifton, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision Ohio Ct. App.
2022REO Invests. L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision Ohio Ct. App.
2021Gupta v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Revision Ohio Ct. App.
2021Balco Realty, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision Ohio Ct. App.
2020Cleveland Mun. School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision Ohio Ct. App.
2020Yim v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision Ohio Ct. App.
2019Orange City Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision Ohio Ct. App.
2018Schutz v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bd. of Revision Ohio
2017Columbus City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision Ohio

Cites 5 cases

Benedict v. Hamilton County Board of Revision
Hercules Galion Products, Inc. v. Bowers
Brennan v. Board of Tax Appeals
Smith v. Board of Revision
Fair Store Co. v. Board of Revision

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County et al., Appellants, v. Fodor, Appellee.

Judges

Taft, 0. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.

Attorneys

Mr. John T. Corrigan, prosecuting attorney, Mr. Thomas P. Cyrus and Mr. Adam P. Angelas, for appellant.
Messrs. Burke, Haber & Berick, Mr. Jacob I. Rosenbaum and Mr. Joseph Q. Berick, for appellee.

majority Herbert, J.

The question presented is whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unreasonable or unlawful. The appellant board of revision contends that the Board of Tax Appeals failed to consider all the evidence of fair market value presented.

The fair market value of a parcel of property at a particular time for tax purposes is a question of fact, the determination of which is primarily within the province of the taxing authorities. Benedict v. Hamilton County Board of Revision, 170 Ohio St. 62. In Hercules Galion Products, Inc., v. Bowers, 171 Ohio St. 176, in a per curiam opinion, this court held that the provisions for a direct appeal to this court from decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals were not intended by the G-eneral Assembly to make this court a ‘ ‘ super ’ ’ board of tax appeals. See, also, Brennan v. Board of Tax Appeals, 175 Ohio St. 263; Benedict v. Hamilton County Board of Revision, supra; Fair Store Co. v. Board of Revision of Hamilton County, 145 Ohio St. 231; Smith v. Board of Revision of Washington County, 138 Ohio St. 564. An examination of the record in this case reveals that the Board of Tax Appeals gave due consideration to the evidence before it. It follows that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is neither unreasonable nor unlawful and it is, therefore, affirmed.

Decision affirmed.

Taft, 0. J., Zimmerman, Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider and Brown, JJ., concur.