Legal Opinion

Rice v. Evatt

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1945No. 30147PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

This inquiry relates to the extent to which an optometrist, who in his practice furnishes eyeglasses or other optical accessories to his patients, is liable for the payment of a tax under the sales tax law (Section 5546-1 et seq., General Code). The fundamental provision fixing the sales tax is found in Section 5546-2, General Code. By its terms no tax is imposed where the price of the article sold is less than nine cents; otherwise a tax is imposed as follows:

‘ ‘ One cent, if the price is forty cents or less;

“Two cents, if-the price is more than forty cents and not more than seventy cents;
“Th…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Foster v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  2. State Ex Rel. Bricker v. Buhl Optical Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Rowe v. Standard Drug Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1937
  4. City of Springfield v. HurstOhio Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Accountant's Computer Services, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Emery Industries, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Arizona State Tax CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1965
  4. Fliteways, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Wilson v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1949

4 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