Opinion

City of Brooklyn v. Cuyahoga County Budget Commission

  • 31 Ohio Law Rep. 77
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 2, 1965
Status
Published
Author
Schneider
On the bench
Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Paragraph, Schneider, Sixth, Smith, Syllabus, Taft, Zimmerman
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Schneider, Judge.

1. In an appeal, under Section 5717.-04, Revised Code, to the Supreme Court or a Court of Appeals from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals which apportions the undivided local government fund of a county under the provisions of Section 5705.37, Revised Code, the only ap-pellees necessary to confer jurisdiction of the appeal on the court are the parties joined in the proceedings before the board. (Reuben McMillan Free Library Assn. v. Mahoning County Budget Commission, 175 OhioSt. 91, overruled to the extent inconsistent herewith.)

2. In an appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals from an apportionment of an undivided local government fund by a county budget commission, under Sections 5739.25 and 5705.37, Revised Code, the board hears and determines the matter de novo in the place of, and as if it were, the budget Commission, and every subdivision of the county entitled to participate in that fund is a necessary party thereto. A decision of the board pursuant to proceedings in which all necessary parties were not joined is unreasonable and unlawful.

Decision reversed.

Smith, Matthias, O’Neill and Brown, JJ., concur.

Taft, C. J., and Herbert, J., concur in paragraph two of the syllabus and in the judgment but dissent from paragraph one of the syllabus.

Smith, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for Zimmerman, J.

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.