Legal Opinion

Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. v. Lindley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1978No. Nos. 78-60 and 78-69Published

1DissentLocheb, J.

I

I am unable to agree with the judgment of this court that the hoard’s decision, finding that taxpayer was not required to list the bottles and shells “in the field” in its per*104sonal property tax return, is lawful and reasonable. R. C. 5711.03 sets forth the property which taxpayer is required to list in its tax return, in relevant part, as follows:

“Except as provided in sections 5711.01 to 5711.36 of the Revised Code, all taxable property shall be listed as to ownership or control, valuation, and taxing districts as of the beginning of the first day of January, annually * * (Emphasis added.)

Pe…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1973
  2. Board of Ins. Com'rs v. DuncanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1943
  3. Grabler Manufacturing Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Merchants Motor Freight, Inc. v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1948
  5. Trust Co. v. Greenwood CemeteryNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API