Case Information
*1 [Cite as Turner v. Levin , 124 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2010-Ohio-922.]
T URNER , A PPELLANT , v . L EVIN , T AX C OMMR ., A PPELLEE . [Cite as Turner v. Levin , 124 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2010-Ohio-922.] Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(No. 2009-1847 — Submitted March 9, 2010 — Decided March 16, 2010.) A PPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2007-K-768. O N S HOW -C AUSE O RDER __________________
{¶ 1} On January 15, 2010, the court ordered sua sponte that appellant show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to appellant’s failure to specify the “errors complained of” as required by R.C. 5717.04. In his response to that order, the appellant points to the statement in his notice of appeal that the BTA denied relief to the appellant by “improperly interpreting every instance of fact laid out” by the appellant in his notice of appeal to the BTA. We hold that that statement fails to set forth errors of the BTA as required by R.C. 5717.04, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
{¶ 2} An “assignment of error in a notice of appeal does not confer jurisdiction if ‘the errors set out are such as might be advanced in nearly any case.’ ” Brown v. Levin , 119 Ohio St.3d 335, 2008-Ohio-4081, 894 N.E.2d 35, ¶ 18, quoting Queen City Valves, Inc. v. Peck , (1954), 161 Ohio St. 579, 583, 53 O.O. 430, 120 N.E.2d 310; see also Richter Transfer Co. v. Bowers (1962), 174 Ohio St. 113, 21 O.O.2d 369, 186 N.E.2d 832 (appeal dismissed when the notice did not specify the errors complained of); Lawson Milk Co. v. Bowers (1961), 171 Ohio St. 418, 14 O.O.2d 217, 171 N.E.2d 495. The notice of appeal in this case falls squarely within this doctrine: the claim that a tribunal has misinterpreted a pleading, without more particularity, is too vague and general to give notice of what the appellant intends to argue. Moreover, the notice of appeal in no way
S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO
gives notice of the particular legal arguments raised in the appellant’s briefs and thereby fails to furnish a jurisdictional basis for the court to consider those arguments. Brown , ¶ 19; Newman v. Levin , 120 Ohio St.3d 127, 2008-Ohio-5202, 896 N.E.2d 995, ¶ 28.
{¶ 3} For the foregoing reasons, this appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. [1]
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
__________________
Robin Turner, pro se.
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Julie E. Brigner and Damion Clifford, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
_____________________
1. The Tax Commissioner has filed a motion to strike. That motion is denied as moot.
2