The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 228.]
MIDDLETON, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION ET AL.,
APPELLEES.
[Cite as Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 1996-Ohio-97.]
Taxation—Real property valuation—Party does not have standing to file a
complaint seeking a decrease in the value of property owned by another—
R.,C. 5715.13, construed and applied.
(Nos. 94-2399, 94-2534, 95-300 and 95-463—Submitted December 6, 1995—
Decided January 10, 1996.)
APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 94-P-158, 94-K-468, 94-K-1137
and 94-D-1126.
__________________
David J. Middleton, pro se.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Marilyn Barkley Cassidy, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Cuyahoga
County Board of Revision and Cuyahoga County Auditor.
Armstrong, Mitchell & Damiani, Timothy J. Armstrong and Victor V.
Anselmo, for appellee Cleveland Board of Education in case Nos. 94-2399 and 95-
300.
Kelly, McCann & Livingstone and Robert A. Brindza, for appellee
Cuyahoga Heights Board of Education in case No. 94-2534.
Kadish & Bender, Kevin M. Hinkel and David G. Lambert, for appellee
Board of Education for the Berea City School District in case No. 95-463.
Rosenzweig, Schulz & Gillombardo Co., L.P.A., and Bill J. Gagliano,
urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Westlake Board of Education in case No. 94-
2399.
__________________
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 1} Case Nos. 94-2399, 94-2534, 95-300 and 95-463 are consolidated.
{¶ 2} The decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals are affirmed on the
authority of Middleton v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d
___, ___ N.E.2d ___, decided today.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
__________________
2