Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Lindley
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C. J.
The appellant has raised one proposition of law that is expressed as follows: “The Ohio Coal Consumption Tax discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.”
The underlying purpose of the Commerce Clause is to facilitate free trade between the states. In order to effectively achieve that objective the United States Supreme Court has ebnsistently held 'that a state may not impose a taxing scheme that discriminates against such commerce by establishing a direct-advantage to its local economy. This cardinal, rule of ¡constitutional…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- City of Philadelphia v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Allied Stores of Ohio, Inc. v. BowersSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- OPUS III-VII Corp. v. Ohio State Board of PharmacyOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
- Diehl, Inc. v. Ohio Department of AgricultureOhio Supreme Court · 2004