dissenting. I respectfully dissent. It has long been the policy of this court not to disturb a decision of the BTA regarding valuation unless the decision of the BTA is unreasonable or unlawful. Bd. of Revision v. Fodor (1968), 15 Ohio St. 2d 52, 44 O.O. 2d 30, 239 N.E. 2d 25.1 do not find from the record that the decision of the BTA fails either test. I would affirm the decision of the BTA.
Moyer, C.J., and Sweeney, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.Board of Education v. Board of Revision
Related Cases
- State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Commission
- Villa Park Ltd. v. Clark County Board of Revision
- Olmsted Falls Village Ass'n v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision
- Dublin-Sawmill Properties v. Franklin County Board of Revision
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority