Legal Opinion

VeriFone, Inc. v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 27, 1994No. 93-1974PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Doyle v. Ohio Bureau of Motor VehiclesOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Akron Standard Division of Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Board of Education v. Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Plowden & Roberts, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Servomation Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hafiz v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Hambuechen v. 221 Market North, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API