Legal Opinion

Cleveland Trinidad Paving Co. v. Limbach

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 1990No. 89-1143PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Cleveland Trinidad’s chief argument is that, by recycling asphalt concrete containing liquid asphalt, it need not purchase as much liquid asphalt and, thus, a like amount of liquid asphalt is available for someone else to use as energy. The commissioner responds that, to be certified, the equipment must convert solid waste into energy and that Cleveland Trinidad’s equipment converts solid waste, instead, into paving material. Since we agree with the commissioner, we affirm the BTA’s decision.

If the commissioner issues a solid waste energy conversion certificate, under R.C. 5709.50 the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Osborne Bros. Welding Supply, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Timken Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Marietta Coal Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1983

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Board of Commissioners v. City of LebanonOhio Supreme Court · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API