Tri-State Asphalt Corp. v. Glander
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.
The first two pages of the argument in appellant’s brief are concerned with the assertion that the instant case involves a potential refund liability of the state of Ohio of a large sum of money, and the inference seems to be that our. judgment should be influenced by that fact. That argument has no persuasive force whatsoever. There is only one question for solution in the instant case.
Section 5546-2, General Code, provides that “an excise tax is hereby levied on each retail sale made in this state of tangible personal property * #
Section 5546-1 defines “retail sale” and “sales at retail”…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- France Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Fyr-Fyter Co. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1948
- Dye Coal Co. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Saunders Mills, Inc. v. EvattOhio Supreme Court · 1942
3Cited by31 opinions
- Mead Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- Canton Malleable Iron Co. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Tulsa MacHinery Co. v. Oklahoma Tax CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953
- Commonwealth v. Community Motor Bus Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1973
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.