Opinion

Musto v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion)

  • 148 Ohio St. 3d 456
  • 71 N.E.3d 279
  • 2016 Ohio 8058
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 13, 2016
Status
Published
Author
O'Neill
On the bench
O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, French, Kennedy, O'Neill, Pfeifer
Cited by
21 cases

The opinion

O’Neill, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 59} I must dissent. The Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) acted totally unreasonably in denying the request to continue the hearing so that the appraiser who submitted the report introduced by appellant, Cynthia M. Musto, could testify either in person or by another method. This is an informal hearing, and in this day of advanced cell-phone technology, the government agency had a duty to accommodate the witness in a reasonable fashion. I would reverse the decision of the BTA on appellant’s first proposition of law.

Pfeifer, J., concurs in the foregoing 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.