Legal Opinion

DeNoon v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1989No. 88-1012Published

1Concurrence · DouglasDouglas, J.

I concur in the judgment of the majority. Arguably, the chalk and lumber crayons should be excepted from tax because their use occurs while the manufacturing process is taking place. This point is not even contested in appellant’s brief which contains no discussion or explanation as to why appellant Tax Commissioner thinks the chalk and crayons should be taxed.

With regard to the other items in question — the high lifts, the Barko crane, the lumber carts, fuel and spare parts — I strongly agree with the majority that these items should not be excepted from taxation as items used or consumed…

Also in this document: Concurrence · Sweeney.

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Mead Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Ohio Ferro-Alloys Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Celina Mutual Ins. v. BowersOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Interlake, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975

7 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