State v. Wilputte Coke Oven Corporation
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
FOSTER, Justice.
The question here is the application of the statute, Title 51, section 789 (q) exempting from the use tax “machines used in * * * processing and manufacturing of tangible personal property.” “Machines * * * include machinery which is used for * * * processing or manufacturing tangible personal property, and the parts of such machines, attachments and replacements therefor, which are made or manufactured for use on or in the operation of such machines and which are necessary to the operation of such machines and are customarily so used.”
The taxpayer made a contract to sell to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Alabama v. King & BoozerSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Layne Central Co. v. CurrySupreme Court of Alabama · 1942
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. Calumet & Hecla Consol. Copper Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1953
- State Ex Rel. Dravo Corporation v. SpradlingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974
- Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc. v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
- Herman M. Brown Company v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1957
- State v. Newbury Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1957
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.