The owner of any lot or parcel of land who objects to the amount or apportionment of, or the assessment against such lot or parcel as set forth in the estimated assessment filed under section 727.12 of the Revised Code, shall file such objection, in writing, with the clerk of the legislative authority within two weeks from the date of completion of the notice required under section 727.13 of the Revised Code. Such objection shall include the address for mailing of the notice provided in section 727.16 of the Revised Code. An owner who fails to so file an objection shall be deemed to have waived any objection.
Burton v. City of Middletown, 446 N.E.2d 793 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4דIt is probable, however, that this remand will potentially inure to the benefit of only seven of the fifty-two appellants. In view of our holding as to appellants’ third assignment of error, the only justifiable issue remaining is as to the amount of the individual assessments.”
Wolfe v. City of Avon, 463 N.E.2d 1251 (Ohio 1984). “The facts would support the conclusion that Wolfe had not properly filed his objections to the proposed assessments pursuant to R.C. 727.15, so therefore had waived this avenue of challenge to such assessments.”
Hunter v. Hall (In Re Hall), 84 B.R. 472 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1987). · cites it 2ד1983); 4 Collier on Bankruptcy § 727.15 at 727-105 n. 8a (15th ed. 1987).”
Early v. Leatherman, Treas., 137 N.E.2d 287 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 4דSee Section 3819, General Code, now Section 727.15, Revised Code. One thing is certain in this case, and that is that there are many unsold vacant lots in this village.”
Dobnicker v. Albers (In Re Albers), 80 B.R. 414 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1987). · cites it 2ד1983); 4 Collier on Bankruptcy § 727.15 at 727-105 n. 8a (15th ed. 1987).”
Nickols v. Pierce, 556 F. Supp. 1280 (S.D. Ohio 1982). · cites it 2דDefendants have pointed out that, while a few of the affected property owners filed objections to the estimated assessments with the City’s Equalization Board, pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 727.15, the Equalization Board recommended that no changes be made in the amount of the…”
Williams v. Schneider, 2017 Ohio 9152 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “18 and objections to the assessment under R.C. 727.15. Both R.C. 727.18 and 727.15 deal solely with the owner's rights to file claims or objections.”
Day v. Mummey, 200 N.E.2d 785 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963). · cites it 2דPlaintiffs’ claim for relief from the assessments is grounded on the provisions of then existing Section 727.15, Revised Code, which provided:— “* * * Assessments levied for the construction of main sewers shall not exceed the sum that, in the opinion of the legislative…”
Cristo v. City of Niles, 170 Ohio St. (N.S.) 59 (Ohio 1959). · cites it 4דprocess of law, in *60 that the amount of the assessments exceeds the special benefits received as a result of the street improvement and is contrary to the provisions of Section 727.15, Revised Code, which reads in part as follows: “The legislative authority of a municipal…”
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.