Case law

PPG Industries, Inc. v. Kosydar

65 Ohio St. 2d 80 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1981

Brown, J. R. C. 5717.04 limits the revisory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to determining whether the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals was reasonable and lawful. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. … Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the board’s decision and remanding the cause is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Krupansky, P. Brown, Sweeney and Donofrio, JJ., concur. Celebrezze, C.

West Virginia v. Ohio Hazardous Waste Facility Approval Board

28 Ohio St. 3d 83 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1986

Federal Communications Comm. v. … Brown and Wright, JJ., concur. Douglas J., concurs in judgment only. Locher, J., dissents.

TBC Westlake, Inc. v. Hamilton County Board of Revision

81 Ohio St. 3d 58 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1998

The fact that the board was deciding *62 a dispute between two outside groups adds force to the conclusion that the proceeding was quasi-judicial.” Id. In Zangerle v. … Privacy provides an opportunity for candid discussion between board members and staff on the legal issues and the facts so the BTA can reach a sound decision. See Nasrallah v.

State ex rel. Godfray v. McGinty

66 Ohio St. 2d 113 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1981

Clarke, v. Cook (1921), 103 Ohio St. 465 , paragraph two of the syllabus; State, ex rel. Locher, v. Menning (1916), 95 Ohio St. 97 , 99. … Osborn, v. Jackson (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 41 . Writ allowed. Celebrezze, C. J., W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and C. Brown, JJ., concur.

City of Toledo v. City of Sylvania

42 Ohio St. 2d 367 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 28, 1975

That evidence supports the board’s conclusion that the estimated expenditures were for payment relative to the purposes designated in the special fund categories. … Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Ohio Nurses Ass'n v. State Board of Nursing Education

44 Ohio St. 3d 73 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 5, 1989

Our conclusion herein is totally consistent not only with our holding in Dental Hygienists, supra, but also with our prior pronouncements in McLean Trucking Co. v. … Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Struthers City Schools Board of Education v. Struthers Education Ass'n

6 Ohio St. 3d 308 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1983

Brown, J. R.C. 3319.11 sets forth certain procedures which must be followed by a board of education when termination of a nontenured teacher’s employment is contemplated. … In Dayton Teachers Assn. v.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Wexler

139 Ohio St. 3d 597 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2014

Disciplinary Counsel v. … Id. at ¶ 10- 11. {¶ 15} The board cited Akron Bar Assn. v.

State ex rel. Rock v. School Employees Retirement Board

96 Ohio St. 3d 206 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 21, 2002

See, generally, Howard v. … Neff v.

Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Board v. Central Cadillac Co.

14 Ohio St. 3d 64 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1984

It is settled law that an appellate court must presume that the decision of an administrative board is valid and was arrived at in a proper manner. Wheeling Steel Corp. v. … Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Malone v. Court of Common Pleas

45 Ohio St. 2d 245 · Ohio Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1976

Gordon, v. … Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur. ... Celebrezze, J., dissents. Cole, J., of the Third Appellate District, sitting for Corrigan, J.

State Ex Rel. Scott v. Franklin County Board of Elections

139 Ohio St. 3d 171 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2014

Ohio Liberty Council v. … As part of that duty, boards must compare petition signatures with voter-registration cards to determine if the signatures are genuine. State ex rel. Yiamouyiannis v.

Ohio State Bar Ass'n v. Roest

54 Ohio St. 2d 95 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1978

V(10)(d) provides: “Any suspension under this section may be terminated on Eespondent’s application to the Board and a showing of removal of the cause for suspension, which is certified by the Board to, and affirmed by, the … Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

Hillyer v. Painesville Township Local Board of Education

87 Ohio St. 3d 202 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1999

Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451 , 715 N.E.2d 1062 . Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. *203 Douglas and Resnick, JJ., concur separately.

Ohio Farmers Grain Corp. v. Board of Revision

45 Ohio St. 2d 85 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 11, 1976

The issue presented by this appeal is identical to that decided by the court this day in Bobb Bros. v. Bd. of Revision (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 81 . … Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Columbus City School District Board of Education v. Wilkins

101 Ohio St. 3d 112 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 11, 2004

In a similar situation, in Mid-States Terminal, Inc. v. Lucas Cty. … In Shawnee Twp. v. Allen Cty.

Oberlin Manor, Ltd. v. Lorain County Board of Revision

45 Ohio St. 3d 56 · Ohio Supreme Court · Aug 16, 1989

In appeals from boards of revision, the BTA determines the true value of the subject property. R.C. 5717.03. On appeal, this court decides whether that decision is unreasonable or unlawful. R.C. 5717.04. … Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., dissents.

Smith v. Kates

46 Ohio St. 2d 263 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 26, 1976

V. Gov. R. … Brown, JJ., concur. Corrigan and Celebrezze, JJ., not participating.

Voinovich v. Board of Park Commrs.

42 Ohio St. 2d 511 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1975

C. 5713.08; Ursuline Academy of Cleveland v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1943), 141 Ohio St. 559 , 49 N. E. 2d 680 ; Ursuline Academy of Cleveland v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1943), 141 Ohio St. 563 , 49 N. E. 2d 674 . … For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed. Decision affirmed. Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.

Walker v. Board of Public Works

16 Ohio St. 540 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1847

Gavitt v. Chambers, 3 Ohio, 495; Commissioners Land Fund v. Kempshall, 26 Wend. 404 ; Rules of the Chancellor of Now York in 17 Wend. 571 . … The gist of the answer of tho board of public works is, “that the waters of the Great Miami have been used by Walker & Fxdton for hydraulic purposes, by means of a dam not authorized by law, and which is and has been from