Opinion

Weed v. Board of Revision

  • 53 Ohio St. 2d 20
  • 7 Ohio Op. 3d 63
  • 372 N.E.2d 338
  • 1978 Ohio LEXIS 482
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jan 18, 1978
Status
Published
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Locher, Neill, Sweeney
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 77.7%

The 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 However, “[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.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.