public utility exception in Ohio

7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2002 0 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 (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Manfredi Motor Transit Co. v. Limbach green ohio · 1988 2 sentences 1993In Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Limbach (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 10, 11 , 558 N.E.2d 42, 43 , citing Manfredi Motor Transit Co. v. Limbach (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 518 N.E.2d 936, 939 , we set forth the conditions necessary to meet the public utility exception: “First, the taxpayer must be a regulated public utility. 1993In Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Limbach (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 10, 11 , 558 N.E.2d 42, 43 , citing Manfredi Motor Transit Co. v. Limbach (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 518 N.E.2d 936, 939 , we set forth the conditions necessary to meet the public utility exception: “First, the taxpayer must be a regulated public utility.	3	1990–1993
Mammina v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Cortlandt green nysupct · 1981 2 sentences 2002In Mammina v. Cortlandt Zoning Bd. of Appeals (1981), 110 Misc.2d 534 , 442 N.Y.S.2d 689 , a New York court rejected a radio station’s reliance upon FCC licensing to prove public utility status. 2002In Mammina v. Cortlandt Zoning Bd. of Appeals (1981), 110 Misc.2d 534 , 442 N.Y.S.2d 689 , a New York court rejected a radio station’s reliance upon FCC licensing to prove public utility status.	2	2002–2002
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Kosydar green ohio · 1974 2 sentences 1997Co. v. Kosydar (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 71, 75 , 67 O.O.2d 81, 84 , 310 N.E.2d 245, 248 , ruled that “the test for determining whether such acquisitions are within the public utility exception of R.C. 5739.01(E)(2) is a statutory one.” In paragraph one of the syllabus, the Cincinnati Gas court held that the property must satisfy one of the three standards of R.C. 5739.01(Q) (now [P]). 1997Co. v. Kosydar (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 71, 75 , 67 O.O.2d 81, 84 , 310 N.E.2d 245, 248 , ruled that “the test for determining whether such acquisitions are within the public utility exception of R.C. 5739.01(E)(2) is a statutory one.” In paragraph one of the syllabus, the Cincinnati Gas court held that the property must satisfy one of the three standards of R.C. 5739.01(Q) (now [P]).	2	1997–1997
Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Limbach neutral ohio · 1990 2 sentences 1993In Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Limbach (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 10, 11 , 558 N.E.2d 42, 43 , citing Manfredi Motor Transit Co. v. Limbach (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 518 N.E.2d 936, 939 , we set forth the conditions necessary to meet the public utility exception: “First, the taxpayer must be a regulated public utility. 1993In Inland Refuse Transfer Co. v. Limbach (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 10, 11 , 558 N.E.2d 42, 43 , citing Manfredi Motor Transit Co. v. Limbach (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 73, 76 , 518 N.E.2d 936, 939 , we set forth the conditions necessary to meet the public utility exception: “First, the taxpayer must be a regulated public utility.	2	1993–1993
Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Limbach neutral ohio · 1985 2 sentences 1990In Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Limbach (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 320 , 18 OBR 365, 481 N.E. 2d 579 , the taxpayer sought relief under the public utility exception. 1990In Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. Limbach (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 320 , 18 OBR 365, 481 N.E. 2d 579 , the taxpayer sought relief under the public utility exception.	1	1990–1990

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 5739.01 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 5739.02 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

PA 7 (1976–2019) OH 7 (1990–2002) IL 3 (1978–2024) TX 2 (1954–2021) KS 2 (1997–1999) RI 2 (1973–1976) TN 2 (1932–1933) NY 2 (1997–2003) WI 2 (1914–1932)

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