Craftsman Type, Inc. v. Lindley
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLocher, J.
Appellant’s rationale for seeking the reversal of the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision is tripartite, First, appellant asserts that the operation of the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (expression of one thing implies exclusion of another) removes the transfer of reproduction proofs from the definition of taxable “sales” set forth in R.C. 5739.01(B). Secondly, appellant argues that no tax liability has accrued as its customers purchase the proofs exclusively for uses specifically designated in R.C. 5739.01(E) as tax exempt. Finally, appellant contends that the transactions…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- American Restaurant & Lunch Co. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1946
- Lenart v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- In re HartmanOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Union Metal Mfg. Co. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- Co-operative Pure Milk Ass'n v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Post v. SchweikertOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. v. KinneyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Copperweld Steel Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Aramark Corp. v. HarrisOhio Supreme Court · 2025
- Aramark Corp. v. HarrisOhio Supreme Court · 2025
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.