Opinion

Bedford v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp.

  • 102 Colo. 538
  • 81 P.2d 752
Court
Supreme Court of Colorado
Filed
Jul 11, 1938
Status
Published
Author
Bouck
On the bench
Knous, Hilliard, Bouck
Cited by
48 cases

"It seems certain from [the use of the words 'wholesale' and 'retail'] that the statute was fundamentally intended to impose a tax upon that which is consumed and used and exempts only that which is sold for resale."

How later courts described this case

  • "It seems certain from [the use of the words 'wholesale' and 'retail'] that the statute was fundamentally intended to impose a tax upon that which is consumed and used and exempts only that which is sold for resale."

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Public Service Co. v. Department of Revenue, 2011 Colo. App. LEXIS 1518 (2011)

    However, Bedford is distinguishable.
    Colorado Court of AppealsSep 15, 2011Read it

The opinion

Mr. Justice Bouck

concurs in the conclusion that purchases made by the company in connection with its hospital operations are tax exempt, but dissents in so far as the disposition here made otherwise reverses the judgment of the trial court.

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.