Legal Opinion
Ace Steel Baling, Inc. v. Porterfield
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 23, 1969No. 68-486PublishedCited by 75 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSchneider, J.
The issue before the Board of Tax Appeals was whether the primary use of appellant taxpayer’s self-propelled railway cranes in its scrap steel plant was in the processing phase of that operation. See Mead Corp. v. Glander (1950), 153 Ohio St. 539. If it was, admittedly the one crane purchased in the taxable years in question would be exempt from the Ohio Sales and IJse Tax, as would he *138the supplies necessary to maintain and fuel three other such cranes. See Sections 5739.02 and 5741.02, Revised Code.
If, on the other hand, the primary use of the cranes was found to be the unloading of the raw…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. v. Communications Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1950
- Public Service Commission v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1955
- Douglas Goldman and Evelyn K. Goldman v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1967
- Mead Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- Southern Pacific Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by75 opinions
- O'Day v. WebbOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- Clemets v. HestonOhio Court of Appeals · 1985
- Citizens Financial Corp. v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1971
- Columbus City School District Board of Education v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- SFZ Transportation, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1993
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.