Legal Opinion
Fyr-Fyter Co. v. Glander
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 21, 1948No. 31245 and 31258PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSohngen, J.
In determining whether the decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals in these two cases are unreasonable or unlawful, we come to. grips with Sections 5546-1 and 5546-25, General Code.
Section 5546-1 provides, in part so far as pertinent, as follows:
“ ‘Retail sale’ and ‘sales at retail’ include all sales excepting those in which the purpose of the consumer is * * * to use or consume the thing transferred directly in the production of tangible personal property for sale by * * * mining * *
Section 5546-25 provides, in part so far as pertinent, as follows:
“ ‘Use’ means and includes the exercise of any…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dye Coal Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Leader v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1948
3Cited by24 opinions
- Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Courier Citizen Co. v. Commissioner of Corporations & TaxationMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Tri-State Asphalt Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- Lyons v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Commonwealth v. United Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1978
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.