8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
SFZ Transp., Inc. v. Limbachgreen1 sentence2026See SFZ Transp., Inc. v. Limbach, 1993-Ohio-240 ; Rowe-Reilly Corp. v. Tracy, 1999-Ohio-326 . {¶ 25} This case involves both the situsing determination under R.C. 5751.033(E) and the refund procedures under R.C. 5751.08, the latter of which requires that the taxpayer “provide the amount of the requested refund along with the claimed reasons for, and documentation to support, the issuance of a refund,” R.C. 5751.08(A). | 1 | 1 |
Corrigan v. Testa (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2020See Corrigan v. Testa, 149 Ohio St.3d 18 , 2016-Ohio-2805 , 73 N.E.3d 381, ¶ 71 (cause remanded to the tax commissioner for issuance of refunds). 12 January Term, 2020 Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 2020See Corrigan v. Testa, 149 Ohio St.3d 18 , 2016-Ohio-2805 , 73 N.E.3d 381, ¶ 71 (cause remanded to the tax commissioner for issuance of refunds). 12 January Term, 2020 Judgment reversed and cause remanded. | 1 | 1 |
Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. v. Lindleygreen2 sentences2009See Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. v. Bindley (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 1, 5 , 8 O.O.3d 1 , 374 N.E.2d 400, fn. 2 (R.C. 5733.12 “provide[s] a substantive right — the right to a refund”). 2009See Coca-Cola Bottling Corp. v. Bindley (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 1, 5 , 8 O.O.3d 1 , 374 N.E.2d 400, fn. 2 (R.C. 5733.12 “provide[s] a substantive right — the right to a refund”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rowe-Reilly Corp. v. Tracy
neutral
1 sentence2026See SFZ Transp., Inc. v. Limbach, 1993-Ohio-240 ; Rowe-Reilly Corp. v. Tracy, 1999-Ohio-326 . {¶ 25} This case involves both the situsing determination under R.C. 5751.033(E) and the refund procedures under R.C. 5751.08, the latter of which requires that the taxpayer “provide the amount of the requested refund along with the claimed reasons for, and documentation to support, the issuance of a refund,” R.C. 5751.08(A). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Defender Sec. Co. v. Testa
neutral
1 sentence2020Id. {¶ 12} Defender appealed to the Franklin County Court of Appeals, which affirmed the BTA’s decision. 2019-Ohio-725, ¶ 30 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Ohio Power Co.
green
2 sentences2018All the commission had to do was require a refund clause to be part of the tariff pursuant to R.C. 4905.32. {¶ 67} As a creature of statute, the commission " 'has no authority to act beyond its statutory powers.' " In re Application of Ohio Power Co. , 144 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2015-Ohio-2056 , 40 N.E.3d 1060 , ¶ 32, quoting Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Pub. 2018All the commission had to do was require a refund clause to be part of the tariff pursuant to R.C. 4905.32. {¶ 67} As a creature of statute, the commission " 'has no authority to act beyond its statutory powers.' " In re Application of Ohio Power Co. , 144 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2015-Ohio-2056 , 40 N.E.3d 1060 , ¶ 32, quoting Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Pub. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re Review of the Alt. Energy Rider Contained in the Tariffs of Ohio Edison Co.
green
2 sentences2018All the commission had to do was require a refund clause to be part of the tariff pursuant to R.C. 4905.32." In re Rev. of Alternative Energy Rider Contained in Tariffs of Ohio Edison Co. , 153 Ohio St.3d 289 , 2018-Ohio-229 , 106 N.E.3d 1 , ¶ 66 (Kennedy, J., concurring). 2018All the commission had to do was require a refund clause to be part of the tariff pursuant to R.C. 4905.32." In re Rev. of Alternative Energy Rider Contained in Tariffs of Ohio Edison Co. , 153 Ohio St.3d 289 , 2018-Ohio-229 , 106 N.E.3d 1 , ¶ 66 (Kennedy, J., concurring). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Key Services Corp. v. Zaino
green
2 sentences2004Id. at 15 , 764 N.E.2d 1015 . 2004Id. at 15 , 764 N.E.2d 1015 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.
green
1 sentence1990Memphis, supra; in accord Solomon v. United States (C.A.2, 1932), 57 F. 2d 150 ; New, York Trust Co. v. United States (C.A.2, 1937), 87 F. 2d 889 ; Edwards v. Malley (C.A.1, 1940), 109 F. 2d 640 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
New York Trust Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence1990Memphis, supra; in accord Solomon v. United States (C.A.2, 1932), 57 F. 2d 150 ; New, York Trust Co. v. United States (C.A.2, 1937), 87 F. 2d 889 ; Edwards v. Malley (C.A.1, 1940), 109 F. 2d 640 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Solomon v. United States
green
1 sentence1990Memphis, supra; in accord Solomon v. United States (C.A.2, 1932), 57 F. 2d 150 ; New, York Trust Co. v. United States (C.A.2, 1937), 87 F. 2d 889 ; Edwards v. Malley (C.A.1, 1940), 109 F. 2d 640 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Edwards v. Malley
green
1 sentence1990Memphis, supra; in accord Solomon v. United States (C.A.2, 1932), 57 F. 2d 150 ; New, York Trust Co. v. United States (C.A.2, 1937), 87 F. 2d 889 ; Edwards v. Malley (C.A.1, 1940), 109 F. 2d 640 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Evatt
neutral
1 sentence1975Niles Bank v. Evatt, supra; Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Evatt (1943), 142 Ohio St. 254 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.