Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stewart Honeybee Products, Inc. v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 15, 1989No. Nos. 1906 and 1907 C.D. 1983Published

1DissentPalladino, Judge

I must respectfully dissent. On August 8, 1988, in Stewart Honeybee Products, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 118 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 430, 545 A.2d 468 (1988) (Stewart Honeybee I), a unanimous panel of this court held that the process used to refine the honey in this matter did not constitute manufacturing under the capital stock tax, Act of March 4, 1971, P.L. 6, as amended, 72 P.S, § 7602. Petitioner’s exceptions have provided no new authority to support the reversal of Stewart Honeybee I.

*137While the majority opinion correctly sets forth the test for determining whether a process is manufacturing, it…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Armour and Co. v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  2. Commonwealth v. Sunbeam Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  3. Rieck-McJunkin Dairy Co. v. Pittsburgh School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  4. Commonwealth v. Berlo Vending Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  5. Commonwealth v. Tetley Tea Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966

4 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