In Cincinnati School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 325, 1997 Ohio 212, 677 N.E.2d 1197, there was a presumption that the sale price of real property reflected the true value of the property. The Supreme Court held that the burden was on the appellants to show that the sale of the property was not at arm's length. The court made it clear that if evidence had been introduced "which had shown that the sale was not an arm's-length transaction, the rebuttable presumption either would have not arisen or it would have disappeared." The appellants presented testimony of one witness to show that the sale was not an arm's-length sale, but the court held that it was not sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.