VeriFone, Inc. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
VeriFone contends that the commissioner cannot, by rule, establish a thirty-day limit for requesting the remission of penalties only; that, assuming she can, VeriFone has substantially complied with the rule; and that the misinformation the commissioner gave VeriFone estops the commissioner from dismissing the application. We disagree and affirm the board’s decision.
Formerly, R.C. 5739.13 required the commissioner to add a fifteen percent penalty to each assessment she issued. This statute also permitted her to adopt rules to provide for the remission of these penalties. However, Sub.H.B. No.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Doyle v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Akron Standard Division of Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Board of Education v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Plowden & Roberts, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Servomation Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hafiz v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Hambuechen v. 221 Market North, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2015