Legal Opinion

Babcock & Wilcox. Co. v. Kosydar

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1976No. Nos. 76-275 and 76-288PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

I

2Per curiam

The taxpayer proposes initially that the blueprints, drawings and instruction booklets used during and .in the manufacturing process or produced for, sale ylth the. final product are excepted from the sales tax by .R.. C. 5739.01(E)(2).

*253Taxpayer’s engineering .department designs, power generation units specifically fitted to the customer’s needs. The end product of the engineering department is a vellum, or master copy, from which blueprints are made or, copied. Some of the blueprints are used by taxpayer’s production employees during the process of manufacturing the component parts. . .

In…

3Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Ace Steel Baling, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Ohio Ferro-Alloys Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Celina Mutual Ins. v. BowersOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  5. Jackson Iron & Steel Co. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950

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

4Cited by6 opinions

  1. Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Emery Industries, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. White Motor Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  4. General Motors Corp. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. General Motors Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988

1 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