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
- Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Mead Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- State Ex Rel. Foster v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Tri-State Asphalt Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- Fyr-Fyter Co. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1948
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- American National Can Co. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Bartlett v. Nationwide Mutual Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1973
- Sharp v. Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)1996
- Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.