green
Positive treatment
5.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re the Sales & Use Tax Refund Request of Media One, Inc., License No. 51-0180701-ST
(2×)
However, to the extent that the idea must be communicated through a different medium — e.g., an audio tape, a video tape, or the creative arrangement of ink on paper — tangible personal property is required.”); Emery Indus., Inc. v. Limbach, 43 Ohio St.3d 134 , 539 N.E.2d 608, 613 (1989) (stating that the test of whether an advertising transaction is taxable depends, upon whether the transfer of the property is a "consequential element” of the transaction); cf. Val-Pak of Omaha, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 249 Neb. 776 , 545 N.W.2d 447, 449-50 (1996) (finding that control over prepa…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Request of Media One
However, to the extent that the idea must be communicated through a different medium -- e.g., an audio tape, a video tape, or the creative arrangement of ink on paper -- tangible personal property is required."); Emery Indus., Inc. v. Limbach, 539 NE2d 608, 613 (Ohio 1989) (stating that the test of whether an advertising transaction is taxable depends upon whether the transfer of the property is a "consequential element" of the transaction); cf. Val-Pak of Omaha, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 545 NW2d 447, 449-50 (Neb 1996) (finding that control over preparation and distribution of direct-mai…
cited
Cited "see"
Interest of T.J.R.
See Emery Indust. v. Limbach , 539 N.E.2d 608, 610-614 (Ohio 1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Clayburgh v. American West Community Promotions, Inc.
(2×)
See Emery Indust. v. Limbach, 43 Ohio St.3d 134 , 539 N.E.2d 608, 610-614 (1989) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Mark O. Haroldsen, Inc. v. State Tax Commission
See generally Emery Indus., Inc. v. Limbach, 43 Ohio St.3d 134 , 539 N.E.2d 608 (1989); Hasbro Indus., Inc. v. Norberg, 487 A.2d 124 (R.I.1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Boulder v. Leanin' Tree, Inc.
(2×)
See, e.g., Emery Indust., Inc. v. Limbach, 43 Ohio St.3d 134 , 539 N.E.2d 608, 613 (1989) ("overriding purpose" test); Hasbro Indus., Inc. v. Norberg, 487 A.2d 124, 126 (R.I.1985) ("real object" of the transaction); Quotron Systems, Inc. v. Comptroller of Treasury, 287 Md. 178 , 411 A.2d 439, 443 (1980) ("predominant purpose" test); Bullock v. Statistical Tabulating Corp., 549 S.W.2d 166, 167 (Tex.1977) ("essence-of-the-transaction" test); WTAR Radio-TV Corp. v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 877, 883 , 234 S.E.2d 245, 249 (1977) ("true object" test).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Columbus Bar Association
v.
Hartwell
v.
Hartwell
No. D.D. 87-14.
Ohio Supreme Court.
May 31, 1989.
Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright.
Published
On Application for Reinstatement.
The application for reinstatement to the practice of law is granted. Leda M. C. Hartwell is reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio.
(For earlier case, see [1988], 35 Ohio St. 3d 258, 520 N.E. 2d 226.)
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur,