# Abram v. City of Avon Lake

> Ohio Court of Appeals · December 29, 2008 · 180 Ohio App. 3d 145

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3752518

## Case

- **Full name:** ABRAM Et Al., Appellants, v. CITY OF AVON LAKE Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 29, 2008
- **Citations:** 180 Ohio App. 3d 145; 2008 Ohio 6871; 904 N.E.2d 612
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Slaby
- **Judges:** Dickinson, Moore, Slaby
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3752518

## Opinion text

Slaby, Judge,
dissenting.
{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent. The majority correctly notes that a property owner may testify as to the value of his or her property. In this case, however, the property owners did not do so. Instead, they merely stated that the value of the property was not enhanced by the sidewalks and the sidewalks did not provide a benefit to them. Accordingly, I would hold that the property owners did not meet their burden on summary judgment and provide evidence of the value of their lots vis-a-vis the new sidewalk as required by
Wolfe,
11 Ohio St.3d 81, 84 , 11 OBR, 324, 463 N.E.2d 1251 . I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3752518. Public record. Not legal advice.