The county board of revision shall be governed by the laws concerning the valuation of real property and shall make no change of any valuation except in accordance with such laws.
The board may call persons before it and examine them under oath as to their own or another's real property to be placed on the tax list and duplicate for taxation, or the value thereof. If a person notified to appear before the board refuses or neglects to appear at the time required, or appearing, refuses to be sworn or answer any question put to him by the board or by its order, the chairman of the board shall make a complaint thereof in writing to the probate judge of the county, who shall proceed against such person in the same manner as provided in section 5711.37 of the Revised Code.
Dauch v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-1412, 77 N.E.3d 943. “R.C. 5715.10 empowers a board of revision to “call persons before it and examine them under oath as to their own or another’s real property.”
Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Revision (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-4353, 20 N.E.3d 711. “{¶ 25} In doing so, we noted that the enabling statutes for the boards of revision, R.C. 5715.10 and 5715.11, authorize the hearing of complaints and the ordering of an increase or decrease in value, but do not generally authorize dismissals.”
Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Lake Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St. 3d 591 (Ohio 1998). “R.C. 5715.10. Moreover, the majority fails to consider the negative effect such abbreviated responses may have on school boards or other property owners in determining whether to oppose reduction of assessed property values, in filing counter-complaints, and procuring evidence…”
Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Lake Cty. Bd. of Revision, 80 Ohio St. 3d 591 (Ohio 1998). “R.C. 5715.10. {¶ 48} Moreover, the majority fails to consider the negative effect such abbreviated responses may have on school boards or other property owners in determining whether to oppose reduction of assessed property values, in filing counter-complaints, and procuring…”
Gillis v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2024-Ohio-2443, 246 N.E.3d 721. · cites it 2ד{¶9} Shortly after filing the Complaint, Appellee Gillis and Appellee Olentangy Local School District Board of Education (BOE) requested that the BOR invoke its subpoena power pursuant to R.C. §5715.10 and require Appellant Northlake to produce additional documentation relating…”
State Ex Rel. FirstEnergy Corp. v. Lake Cnty. Bd. of Revision, 739 N.E.2d 359 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). “Respondents argue in their motion to dismiss that discovery issues can also be litigated in a proceeding under R.C. 5715.10. In light of our interpretation of the Kalmbach decision, it is not necessary for this court to address this specific argument.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.