Legal Opinion

Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. Porterfield

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 1972No. 71-671PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.

This case involves a claimed exception from Ohio’s tax on sales of tangible personal property at retail. R. C. 5739.02, which provides for the levy of the tax, states, in part:

“For the purpose of providing revenue * * * an excise tax is hereby levied on each retail sale made in this state. ’ ’

R. C. 5739.01, a definitional section, provides, in part:

*165“(E) ‘Retail sale’ * * * include[s] all sales except those in which the purpose of the consumer is:

( 6 -ft*

“ (2) * * # to use or consume the thing transferred directly in the production of tangible personal property for sale by manufacturing,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Mead Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. State Ex Rel. Foster v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Tri-State Asphalt Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Fyr-Fyter Co. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1948

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

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. American National Can Co. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Bartlett v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Sharp v. Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1996
  5. Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981

39 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