Case Name: Roose, Trustee, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, Appellant and Cross-Appellee
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1952-03-19
Citations: 157 Ohio St. 203
Docket Number: No. 32833
Parties: Roose, Trustee, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
Judges: Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 157
Pages: 203–206

Head Matter:
Roose, Trustee, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Cuyahoga County Board of Revision, Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
(No. 32833
Decided March 19, 1952.)
Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and Mr. George Farr, Jr., for appellee.
Mr. Frank T. Gullitan, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Frederick W. Frey, for appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It is contended that the unsubdivided blocks in the allotment should be valued as acreage and not on the basis of front footage; that the ratio of assessed value to sales price of other similar property in the county should have been considered in arriving at a true value in money; and that the Board of Tax Appeals properly took into consideration as one of the factors to be used in arriving at true value the amounts to be expended in installing underground electric and telephone service lines' to the individual lots.
The Board of Tax Appeals gave no consideration to the evidence of the "assessed value — sales value ratio." The board was of the view that, since the blocks are of such dimensions as to be easily subdivided into desirable building lots, the auditor was correct in not valuing the blocks on an acreage basis, that each separate parcel must be valued as it stands on tax lien day with the improvements then existing thereon, and that there should be taken into consideration as one of the factors to be used in determining "true value in money" the amounts to be expended by Roose in installing the underground service lines.
This court is of the opinion, from an examination of the record, that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is not unreasonable or unlawful, and should be and is hereby affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Stewart, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Taft, J. I concur in the judgment only to the extent that it sustains the reduction in value made by the Board of Tax Appeals.
Middleton, J., joins in the foregoing special concurrence.