Legal Opinion

United Telephone Co. v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 23, 1994No. 93-2428PublishedCited by 60 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtA. William Sweeney, J.

Both the commissioner and the BTA found, pursuant to R.C. 5727.06 as amended in 1982, that all of United Telephone’s tangible personal property “owned and located in this state” was subject to personal property tax, including property not “used in business.” The BTA held that amendments resulting from the enactment of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 201, effective December 31, 1982, removed any former requirement that a public utility’s personal property must be “used in business” to be taxable. We reverse.

R.C. 5709.01 establishes' the general principle that all personal property located and “used in…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Johnson's Markets, Inc. v. New Carlisle Department of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Couts v. RoseOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Maxfield v. BrooksOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Hatchadorian v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  5. State of Ohio v. GlassOhio Court of Appeals · 1971

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

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. In re HayesOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. Herman v. KlopfleischOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Board of Education v. ZainoOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State Ex Rel. Data Trace Information Services, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga County Fiscal OfficerOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  5. State ex rel. Thurn v. Cuyahoga County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1995

55 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