Opinion

General Motors Corp. v. Lindley

  • 32 Ohio St. 3d 158
  • 512 N.E.2d 660
  • 1987 Ohio LEXIS 363
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 26, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Holmes
On the bench
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Sweeney, Wright
Cited by
3 cases

The opinion

Holmes, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur generally in the majority opinion, but dissent from the conclusion that the battery charging equipment would not be tax exempt. These electrical units should be exempt in that they are an integral part of the electric mobile units. Without power the latter could not operate to transport the materials, indeed becoming immobile mobile units. Being an integral part of the transporting units, the chargers should be afforded the same tax treatment of exemption.

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.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.