Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Food Marketing Corp.
Indiana Court of Appeals
1DissentStaton, Judge
I dissent. I agree with the Majority that the statute here in issue is clear and unambiguous. I also agree that there is no expression by the Legislature that any words in this statute should be given a technical meaning. Again agreeing with the Majority, the words in this statute should be given their plain, ordinary and usual meaning. I am compelled to dissent, however, since the Majority fails in this endeavor.
The Majority takes the stance that the plain, ordinary and usual meaning of “cost of the stock” is that this includes the cost of the stock, plus buying, warehousing, turnover, and…
2Cases cited68 opinions
- Deputy, Administratrix v. Du PontSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Commissioner v. National Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Commissioner v. JacobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Walters v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Colpaert Realty Corp.Indiana Supreme Court · 1952
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.