Weed v. Board of Revision of Franklin County, 77-429
| Decision Date | 18 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-429,77-429 |
| Citation | 372 N.E.2d 338,53 Ohio St.2d 20,7 O.O.3d 63 |
| Parties | , 7 O.O.3d 63 WEED, Appellant, v. BOARD OF REVISION OF FRANKLIN COUNTY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Thurlow Weed, pro se.
George C. Smith, Pros. Atty., Gene Wetherholt, Chief Counsel, Civil Division, and Frank A. Ray, Columbus, for appellee.
Appellant's contention, in essence, is that Section 1, Article I of the Ohio Constitution, is paramount to all other provisions of the Ohio Constitution and precludes the taxation of his real property inasmuch as he has not consented to such taxation.
However, "(t)he power to tax is an attribute of sovereignty and in this state is included in the general legislative power which is conferred by Section 1, Article II of the Constitution, upon the general assembly without limitation." Saviers v. Smith (1920), 101 Ohio St. 132, 128 N.E. 269. See, also, Section 2 of Article XII, Ohio Constitution.
This court has long recognized that "(i)t is our duty to give a construction to the constitution as will make it consistent with itself, and will harmonize and give effect to all its various provisions." Hill v. Higdon (1855), 5 Ohio St. 243, 247.
Taxation of real property being constitutionally authorized, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is both reasonable, and lawful and is, therefore, affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desenco, Inc. v. Akron
...41 O.O. 217, 218, 91 N.E.2d 250, 251. This plenary power includes the power to levy taxes. Weed v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 20, 21, 7 O.O.3d 63, 64, 372 N.E.2d 338, 338; Saviers v. Smith (1920), 101 Ohio St. 132, 128 N.E. 269, paragraph one of the syllabus. This c......
-
Volbers-klarich v. Middletown Mgmt. Inc
...General Assembly. Saviers v. Smith (1920), 101 Ohio St. 132, 128 N.E. 269, syllabus; see also Weed v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 20, 21, 7 O.O.3d 63, 372 N.E.2d 338. {¶ 23} Accordingly, we hold that when a vendor charges its customer a nonexistent tax, the funds col......
-
Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 2010 Ohio 2057 (Ohio 5/18/2010)
...General Assembly. Saviers v. Smith (1920), 101 Ohio St. 132, 128 N.E. 269, syllabus; see also Weed v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 20, 21, 7 O.O.3d 63, 372 N.E.2d 338. {¶ 23} Accordingly, we hold that when a vendor charges its customer a nonexistent tax, the funds col......
-
GTE North, Inc. v. Zaino
...basis which might support it." Lyons v. Limbach (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 92, 94, 532 N.E.2d 106; Weed v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 20, 21, 7 O.O.3d 63, 372 N.E.2d 338. We have acknowledged that, generally, "`legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constit......