enjoyment privilege (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

enjoyment privilege in Ohio

8 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1904–2025 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Ohio Grocers Assn. v. Levingreen
ohio · 2009 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025It is true that the CAT is a privilege-of-doing- business tax and “is computed using a broad measure of market access that is rationally related to the enjoyment of the privilege of doing business.” Ohio Grocers Assn. v. Levin, 2009-Ohio-4872, ¶ 14, 49 .

11
Gochneaur v. Kosydargreen
ohio · 1976 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983
2 sentences

1983Gochneaur v. Kosydar (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 59, 61, fn. 1 [ 75 O.O.2d 142 ], The statute uses the term “excise tax,” which has been defined as follows: “An ‘excise tax’ is one imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege; the term, it has been said, is sufficiently broad in meaning to include every form of taxation not a burden laid directly on persons or property.

1983Gochneaur v. Kosydar (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 59, 61, fn. 1 [ 75 O.O.2d 142 ], The statute uses the term “excise tax,” which has been defined as follows: “An ‘excise tax’ is one imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege; the term, it has been said, is sufficiently broad in meaning to include every form of taxation not a burden laid directly on persons or property.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
East Ohio Gas Co. v. Limbach green
ohio · 1986
2 sentences

2009Ohio Gas, 26 Ohio St.3d at 66–67, 26 OBR 54, 498 N.E.2d 453 (noting that privilege-of-doing-business tax was “based upon the results of an entire year of doing business” and was “not a tax on daily transactions”). {¶ 49} Sixth, it is computed using a broad measure of market access that is rationally related to the enjoyment of the privilege of doing business.

2009Ohio Gas, 26 Ohio St.3d at 66–67, 26 OBR 54, 498 N.E.2d 453 (noting that privilege-of-doing-business tax was “based upon the results of an entire year of doing business” and was “not a tax on daily transactions”). {¶ 49} Sixth, it is computed using a broad measure of market access that is rationally related to the enjoyment of the privilege of doing business.

12009–2009
Howell Air, Inc. v. Porterfield green
ohio · 1970
1 sentence

1988Under the statutes in question, ‘ “Use” means and includes the exercise of any right or power incidental to the ownership of the thing used.’ R.C. 5741.01(C).” Saviers v. Smith (1920), 101 Ohio St. 132 , 128 N.E. 269 , cited in Howell Air, supra, provides the following definition of an excise at paragraph four of the syllabus: “An excise is a tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation or the enjoyment of a privilege, and by the provisions of Section 10, Article XII of the Constitution, specific authority has been conferred for the levying of such a tax.” When the c

11988–1988
City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Oil Works Co. neutral
ohio · 1931
2 sentences

1943In the case of City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Oil Works Co., 123 Ohio St., 448 , 175 N. E., 699 , in a per curiam ■opinion, the court, at page 450, said: “The state gasoline tax is imposed by the state upon the business of the owner of the filling- station, and not upon the consumer of the gasoline.” The language of Section 5527, General Code, is not clear or free from doubt, and this statement applies equally to Section 5541, General Code, for the reason that the language of Section 5527, General Code, is incorporated in Section 5541, General Code, by reference.

1943In the case of City of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati Oil Works Co., 123 Ohio St., 448 , 175 N. E., 699 , in a per curiam ■opinion, the court, at page 450, said: “The state gasoline tax is imposed by the state upon the business of the owner of the filling- station, and not upon the consumer of the gasoline.” The language of Section 5527, General Code, is not clear or free from doubt, and this statement applies equally to Section 5541, General Code, for the reason that the language of Section 5527, General Code, is incorporated in Section 5541, General Code, by reference.

11943–1943
Holsman v. Thomas green
· 1925
1 sentence

1929State v. Brown 112 OS. 397 .

11929–1929
Texas Co. v. Brown green
scotus · 1922
2 sentences

1925Upon the question whether the tax imposes a burden upon interstate commerce, we are content to follow the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Texas Co. v. Brown, 258 U. S., 466 , 42 S. Ct., 375 , 66 L.

1925Upon the question whether the tax imposes a burden upon interstate commerce, we are content to follow the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of Texas Co. v. Brown, 258 U. S., 466 , 42 S. Ct., 375 , 66 L.

11925–1925
State ex rel. St. Louis Underground Service Co. v. Murphy green
mo · 1896
1 sentence

1904The case of The State, ex rel, v. Murphy, 134 Mo., 548 , cited in argument by one of the learned counsel for the defendant in error, relates to the question of whether or not the city has power to grant the right to lay-wires underground, but as that question is settled in this state by Section 3471-1 permitting telephone companies operating a telephone exchange to lay wires underground if the city consents, and by implication excluding other telephone companies from the enjoyment of this privilege under any circumstances, the Missouri ease does not seem to this court to cut any figure here.

11904–1904

Where else courts name it

MD 14 (1925–2024) IN 10 (1904–2008) MI 10 (1921–2014) GA 8 (1910–2025) OH 8 (1904–2025) NY 6 (1857–1958) WA 6 (1976–2015) NM 5 (1938–2015) MA 4 (1932–1995) CO 4 (1983–1998) PA 4 (1936–1977) KS 4 (1973–2017) OK 4 (1945–2003) MO 3 (1933–2018) CA 3 (1902–1953) LA 3 (1938–2018) ME 2 (1957–1985) MN 2 (2013–2014) IA 2 (1942–2002) SD 2 (1944–1959) OR 2 (1901–1992) AR 2 (1915–1956) MT 2 (1964–1979) TN 2 (1923–2020) NC 2 (1915–1939) VA 2 (1880–1881) KY 2 (1927–1971)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check