# Maumee Valley Broadcasting Ass'n v. Porterfield

> Ohio Supreme Court · February 16, 1972 · 29 Ohio St. 2d 95

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754824

## Case

- **Full name:** Maumee Valley Broadcasting Assn., d. b. a. W. P. O. S., FM v. Porterfield, Tax Commr. of Ohio
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 16, 1972
- **Citations:** 29 Ohio St. 2d 95; 58 Ohio Op. 2d 192; 279 N.E.2d 863; 54 A.L.R. 3d 1200; 1972 Ohio LEXIS 499
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Schneider
- **Judges:** Article, Cobeigan, Constitution, Directed, Duncan, Hekbeet, Keens, Kerns, Leach, Neill, Ohio, Place, Pursuant, Resignation, Schneider, Second, Stead, Steen, Supreme, Syllabus
- **Cited by:** 11 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/6754824

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing the “factual determination” of the Board of Tax Appeals in deciding whether the corporation was a church for purposes of the sales-tax statute

## Opinion text

Schneider, J.,
dissenting. I cannot agree that appel-lee’s operations, however meritorious they are, constitute a “church” as the General Assembly must have used that term. Appellee has no doctrine and no government for its members with its concomitant, discipline.
It may well be operated for a “charitable purpose,” in the broad sense, but the Board of Tax Appeals properly rejected that contention for the reason that, for a sales tax exemption, the term is most narrowly and specifically defined.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6754824. Public record. Not legal advice.