Legal Opinion

Bailey v. Evatt

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 1944No. 29775PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The question presented is whether it was the purpose of the appellants in the purchase of the articles described in the record “to use or consume the thing transferred, directly in the production of tangible personal property [sand and gravel] for sale by * * * processing * * * [or] mining” within the scope and meaning of Sections 5546-1 and 5546-25, respectively, General Code, which sections exempt such property purchased for such purposes from the sales tax and the use tax.

Specifically, the question is whether the operation of the appellants, in which the purchases in question were used and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rock House Fork Land Co. v. Raleigh Brick & Tile Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Nephi Plaster & Mfg. Co. v. Juab CountyUtah Supreme Court · 1907

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. GranderOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Terteling Bros. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  3. West Lake Quarry & Material Co. v. SchaffnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1970
  4. France Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Duval Sierrita Corp. v. Arizona Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1977

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API