State ex rel. City of Cleveland v. Kosydar
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.
Eelator argues that since the excise taxes collected from certain public utilities located within its corporate limits are measured by the gross receipts of the utilities involved, they are actually income taxes within the meaning of Section 9, Article XII of the Constitution of Ohio, and are not excise taxes authorized by Section 10, Article XII. From this, relator concludes that Section 9 of Article XII imposes a clear legal duty upon respondents “to return one half of the taxes paid by public utilities on gross receipts realized in the city of Cleveland, and since they have not done so…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- East Ohio Gas Co. v. Tax Comm'n of OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Angell v. City of ToledoOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- East Ohio Gas Co. v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 1966
- Cincinnati, Milford & Loveland Traction Co. v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1916
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Ohio Grocers Assn. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- East Ohio Gas Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Ohio Grocers Assn. v. LevinOhio Supreme Court · 2009
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.