# Russell Township v. Geauga County

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 7, 1976 · 47 Ohio St. 2d 19

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755831

## Case

- **Full name:** Russell Township, and Cross-Appellee v. Geauga County, and Cross-Appellant Chester Township, and Cross-Appellee v. Geauga County, and
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 7, 1976
- **Citations:** 47 Ohio St. 2d 19; 1 Ohio Op. 3d 12; 350 N.E.2d 919; 1976 Ohio LEXIS 667
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Celebbezze
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebbezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part by City of Lima v. Allen County Budget Commission, 66 Ohio St. 3d 167 (1993).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755831

## Opinion text

Celebbezze, J.,
concurring. In my opinion the majority herein ignores the decision in Cleveland v. Budget Comm. (1976), 47 Ohio St. 2d 27 , decided this date, and for that reason, I am constrained to add the following comments :
In Cleveland, the court, in reversing the decision of the. Board of Tax Appeals, stated that:
“* * * The board has the duty to determine the allocation of the local government fund de novo, not simply to affirm or reverse the decision of the county budget commission. * * * That allocation must be based upon some ascertainable and reasonable standard and upon the evidence presented. [Citations omitted.]
“Because the opinion of the board fails to set out adequate reasons, supported by evidence, for its finding that a 22 percent increase in Cleveland’s expenditures accurately reflects the city’s actual needs, the decision of the board is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. ’ ’
The same result should obtain in the instant cause, because the board’s conclusional statement that “a 15% increase in proposed general fund expenditures for the county for 1975 would be a most reasonable increase and would more properly reflect the actual needs of the county” is insufficient in light of the requirement, in Cleveland , that, the opinion of the board “set out adequate reasons, supported by evidence, for its finding * *
For the foregoing reason, I concur in the judgment of reversal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6755831. Public record. Not legal advice.