Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Limbach
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
First, the Tax Commissioner, in opposition to Goodyear’s appeal, argues that Goodyear has not invoked the court’s jurisdiction to consider Goodyear’s argument that this agreement was not truly a lease. She claims that Goodyear failed to specify this argument in its notice of appeal to the BTA and failed to argue this theory there. Goodyear replies that it raised the apportionment/allocation issue before the BTA, and that it now correctly asserts an alternative argument in support of this specifically raised issue. We agree with Goodyear.
For a reviewing court to have jurisdiction over an…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Osborne Bros. Welding Supply, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Abex Corp. v. KosydarOhio Supreme Court · 1973
- Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1982
3Cited by9 opinions
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Fayette County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Buckeye International, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Consumer Direct, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- General Motors Corp. v. WilkinsOhio Supreme Court · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.