Legal Opinion

Manfredi Motor Transit Co. v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1988No. 86-1334PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

In its first proposition of law, appellant challenges the finding of the BTA that appellant was not engaged primarily in rendering a public utility service. The BTA determined that the purchases of items used interchangeably in appellant’s public utility service and its non-public utility service were not entitled to an exception. Appellant argues that it was engaged primarily in rendering a public utility service, and that all its purchases of equipment were L,used or consumed in the rendition of that public utility service and were thus excepted.

The appellant and the BTA misread the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ace Steel Baling, Inc. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Mead Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Lenart v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Welfare Federation v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Midwest Haulers, Inc. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1948

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. SFZ Transportation, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Buckeye International, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Castle Aviation, Inc. v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Epic Aviation, L.L.C. v. Testa (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016

8 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