green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
22.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…it is evident that a proper exercise of this limiting power requires an express act of restriction by the general assembly
⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…the municipal taxing power is one of the 'powers of local self-government' expressly delegated by the people of the state to the people of municipalities
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Schaad v. Alder
(2×)
the municipal taxing power is one of the 'powers of local self-government' expressly delegated by the people of the state to the people of municipalities
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
New York Frozen Foods, Inc. v. Bedford Hts. Income Tax Bd. of Rev. (Slip Opinion)
(2×)
it is evident that a proper exercise of this limiting power requires an express act of restriction by the general assembly
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amerada Hess Corp. v. State Ex Rel. Tax Commissioner
(2×)
Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 81 Ohio St.3d 599 , 693 N.E.2d 212, 218 (1998); 71 Am.Jur.2d State and Local Taxation § 27 (2001), and cases collected therein.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bd. of Cty Comm. v. City of Cincinnati, Unpublished Decision (11-19-1999)
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Id. at 214, 693 N.E.2d at 514 -515 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Gesler v. City of Worthington Income Tax Board of Appeals
See Article XVIII, Section 13 of the Ohio Constitution, which provides that the General Assembly may “limit the power of municipalities to levy taxes and incur debts,” and Article XIII, Section 6, which states that the General Assembly “shall provide for the organization of cities, and incorporated villages, by general laws, and restrict their power of taxation, * * * so as to prevent the abuse of such power.” {¶ 20} We have explained that “[gjiven this general, broad grant of power that municipalities enjoy under Article XVIII, the Constitution requires that the provisions allowing…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Beecher
v.
Ohio State Home Services, Inc.
v.
Ohio State Home Services, Inc.
No. 98-120.
Ohio Supreme Court.
May 13, 1998.
Javitch, Block, Eisen & Rathbone, Kenneth B. Baker and Michael D. Slodov, for appellant.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Ohio Supreme Court (4)
The court of appeals, finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in Krafcik v. USA Energy Consultants, Inc. (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 59, 667 N.E.2d 1027, certified the record to this court for review and final determination.
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of ABM Farms, Inc. v. Woods (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 498, 692 N.E.2d 574.
Moyer; C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.