Opinion

National Church Residence v. Licking County Board of Revision

  • 73 Ohio St. 3d 397
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 30, 1995
Status
Published
Author
Pfeifer
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by
19 cases

The opinion

Pfeifer,, J.,

dissenting. In its opinion, the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) cites no specific facts to support its conclusion that the board of revision’s claimed value of the property is accurate. Instead, the BTA merely asserts that it looked at the statutory record and found it to be accurate. In contrast, the appellant presented factual testimony from an appraiser. The fact that the appraiser’s methodology is less than exemplary does not excuse the BTA from supporting its conclusion with evidence. Because the only facts discussed in the BTA’s opinion support the taxpayer’s valuation of the property, I would reverse the BTA.

Wright, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

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.