1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Ohio
  4. 67 Ohio
  5. 67 Ohio St.3d 145 (1993)
 

KROGER CO. v. HAMILTON CTY. RD. OF REVISION

No. 92-1313.

67 Ohio St.3d 145 (1993)

KROGER COMPANY, APPELLANT AND CROSS-APPELLEE, v. HAMILTON CTY. BD. OF REVISION; HAMILTON COUNTY AUDITOR, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. CINCINNATI SCHOOL DISTRICT BD. OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT, v. HAMILTON CTY. BD. OF REVISION; HAMILTON COUNTY AUDITOR, APPELLEE AND CROSS-APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided August 18, 1993.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue and Roger Day, for appellant and cross-appellee.

Kohnen, Patton & Hunt and David C. DiMuzio, for appellee and cross-appellant Cincinnati School District Board of Education.

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. Scheve, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee and cross-appellant Hamilton County Auditor.

Per Curiam.

Kroger contends that the BTA erred in utilizing a five percent vacancy rate in determining true value, asserting that the rate was not supported by any credible evidence. We agree.

The income approach to value is a valid method for establishing the true value of real property, and an essential part of the computation is to determine the estimated gross income of the property. Adjustments for such items as depreciation and vacancy rate may...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases