Legal Opinion
Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. v. Porterfield
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 31, 1968No. 68-265PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Per curiam
Section 5741.02, Revised Code, provides in part that:
“ (A) For the use of the general revenue fund of the state, an excise tax is hereby levied on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property * * *.
í Í # # $
“ (B) Each consumer, storing, using, or otherwise consuming in this state tangible personal property purchased for such purpose, shall be liable for the tax * * V’
Section 5741.01, Revised Code, provides, in part:
“As used in Sections 5741.01 to 5741.22, inclusive, of the Revised Code:
“(C) ‘Use’ means and includes the exercise of any right or power…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Taylor v. Sanford, AdministratorTexas Supreme Court · 1917
- Midwest Haulers, Inc. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1948
- Ray v. Leader Federal Savings & Loan AssociationCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1953
3Cited by17 opinions
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Strah v. Lake County Humane SocietyOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Jewel Companies v. PorterfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Mart Realty, Inc. v. NorbergSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1973
- District of Columbia v. W. Bell & Co., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1980
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.