Legal Opinion

OAMCO v. Lindley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 26, 1986No. 85-1114PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

At issue in this case is whether the various parts of the *8manufacturing process are directly related to, or used in, the manufacture of appellant’s product. For the reasons which follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part the board’s decision.

Initially, appellant would have this court adopt the integrated plant theory. This theory views all the components of the manufacturing process as a single unit for tax purposes, and would allow no inquiry beyond whether the whole plant was purchased at the same time. It further implies that every component of the plant is directly used in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hawthorn Mellody, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Hoover v. Board of County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Schucker v. MetcalfOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Southwestern Portland Cement Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Tri-State Asphalt Corp. v. GlanderOhio Supreme Court · 1950

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. OAMCO v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Copperweld Steel Co. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. v. TracyOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  4. City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. City of Rocky River v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1989

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API