Legal Opinion

Big Boy's Toy, Ltd. v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 2, 1992No. 91-1220PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

The BTA correctly identified the basis of the assessment here as “upon [a]ppellant’s ‘storage, use or other consumption’ in this state of a boat named ‘Big Boy’s Toy,’ ” and the applicable provisions of the Revised Code. However, it erred in relying on Cargill, supra, and in ignoring the leading case involving the impact of the Commerce Clause on state use taxes, Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady (1977), 430 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 1076, 51 L.Ed.2d 326.

On May 26, 1992, the United States Supreme Court decided Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91. Quill Corp.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. BradySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. HeitkampSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. D. H. Holmes Co., Ltd. v. McNamaraSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Quotron Systems, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Louisville Title Agency for N. W. Ohio, Inc. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1975

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Rockies Express Pipeline, L.L.C. v. McClain (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API