Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 Ohio App. 2d 9 - Graham v. Day

12 Ohio App. 2d 9 - Graham v. Day’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Richley v. Moop · 140 Ohio St. 229 - Domito v. Village of Maumee · City of Edinburg v. Magee

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The only annotation that will be found remotely bearing on this question is in 64 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations s 2049, p. 772. It reads as follows: “Aggregate valuation of several properties. Although generally a taxpayer is entitled to have each separate tract or parcel of land separately valued and assessed, where two or more tracts or parcels are occupied and used together by the property owner for a single purpose their separate identities become merged into one and they may be valued and assessed in solido, and it has been held that, where there is no statutory definition of the lot or parcel of land that is the lawful unit for purposes of taxation, contiguous parcels of land, although divided on a plan, may be assessed separately or as a unit. Under some circumstances the rule may even apply to contiguous lots used for a single purpose even though such lots are owned by different persons. Certainly where the statute or charter authorizes it the value of several lots may be lumped and assessment made for the aggregate amount, even though they are not adjoining lots or in any way connected with each other, provided only the lots are properly designated.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.