State ex rel. Park Inv. Co. v. Board of Tax Appeals
Decision Date | 24 December 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 68-277,68-277 |
Citation | 16 Ohio St.2d 85,242 N.E.2d 887 |
Parties | , 45 O.O.2d 440 The STATE ex rel. the PARK INVESTMENT CO., v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS et al. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Forrester & Kovanda, Cleveland, for relator.
William B. Saxbe, Atty. Gen., and Edgar L. Lindley, Columbus, for respondent, Board of Tax Appeals.
John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., A. M. Braun, John L. Dowling and Thomas P. Cyrus, Cleveland, for respondent, Ralph J. Perk, Auditor of Cuyahoga County.
The question which this case presents is: Do Sections 5715.01 and 5715.24, Revised Code, and Section 2 of Article XII of the Ohio Constitution and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution require statewide uniformity in the assessment of real property for taxation?
This court holds that the Board of Tax Appeals is required to supervise the assessment for taxation of all real property within the state and, pursuant to Section 5715.01, Revised Code, the board is obligated to in accordance with Section 5715.02 and Section 5713.03, Revised Code, and the rules of the Board of Tax Appeals. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, it is the mandatory duty of the Board of Tax Appeals to see that all real property within the state of Ohio is assessed at a uniform percentage of its true value in money, which assessed value shall not exceed fifty per cent of its true value in money.
Section 5715.24, Revised Code, requires:
'The board of tax appeals, annually, at a meeting to be held at its office in Columbus on the first Monday in August, or on the date thereafter to which such meeting is adjourned, shall determine whether the real property and the various classes thereof in the several counties, municipal corporations, and taxing districts have been assessed by an equal and uniform rule at taxable value, and if the board finds that the real property or any class thereof in any county, municipal corporation, or taxing district, as reported by the several county auditors to it, is not listed by uniform rule at taxable value, the board shall increase or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Swetland v. Kinney
...218 N.E.2d 723; Frederick Bldg. Co. v. Bd. of Revision (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 59, 233 N.E.2d 594; State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 85, 242 N.E.2d 887; State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 161, 270 N.E.2d Certainl......
-
Black v. Board of Revision of Cuyahoga County
...the Park Investment Company. See State, ex rel. Park Invest. Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, supra; State, ex rel. Park Invest. Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 85, 242 N.E.2d 887 ; State ex rel. Park Invest. Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 161, 270 N.E.2d 342 ;......
-
State ex rel. Park Inv. Co. v. Board of Tax Appeals
...as required by the granting of the writ of mandamus by this court in December 1968, as reported in State ex rel. Park Invest. Co. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 16 Ohio St.2d 85, 242 N.E.2d 887. In that case, the court stated '* * * it is the mandatory duty of the Board of Tax Appeals to see that a......
-
Meyer v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision
...ex rel. Park Investment Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1964), 175 Ohio St. 410, 195 N.E.2d 908; State, ex rel. Park Investment Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1968), 16 Ohio St.2d 85, 242 N.E.2d 887; State, ex rel. Park Investment Co., v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 161, 270 N.E.2d 34......