Opinion

American District Telegraph Co. v. Porterfield

15 Ohio St. 2d 92
44 Ohio Op. 2d 64
238 N.E.2d 782
1968 Ohio LEXIS 377

Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Filed: Jun 26, 1968
Status: Published
Author: Taet
On the bench: Brown, Herbert, Matthias, Neill, Schneider, Taet, Zimmerman
Cited by: 7 cases

Distinguished

Distinguished by Bunker-Ramo Corp. v. Porterfield, 21 Ohio St. 2d 231 (1970)
The appellee relies upon the case of American District Telegraph Co. v. Porterfield, supra. That case, however, is distinguishable.
Ohio Supreme CourtMar 25, 1970Read it

The opinion

Taet, C. J.,

dissenting in part. I concur in what is said in the majority opinion with respect to the Central Station contracts being excepted from sales tax.

However, I dissent from that portion of the judgment holding taxable local alarm and direct connect systems. In my opinion, Federal Sign & Signal Corp. v. Bowers, Tax Commr., 172 Ohio St. 161 , requires the conclusion that there was no transfer of possession within the meaning of Section 5739.01(B).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.