# State Department of Revenue v. Omni Studio, LLC

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · April 29, 2016 · 222 So. 3d 367

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4842042

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. OMNI STUDIO, LLC
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** April 29, 2016
- **Citations:** 222 So. 3d 367; 2016 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 100; 2016 WL 1719918
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moore
- **Judges:** Donaldson, Moore, Pittman, Thomas, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4842042

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming trial court’s ruling that transfer of photos was incidental to nontaxable creative service of photography

## Opinion text

MOORE, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur only because I am constrained by § 12-8-16, Ala.Code 1976 (“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall govern the holdings and decisions of the courts of appeals.... ”), and the doctrine of stare decisis as to the construction of § 40-23-2(1), Ala.Code 1976. See Moore v. Prudential Residential Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 849 So.2d 914, 926 (Ala.2002).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4842042. Public record. Not legal advice.