BEAVER EXCAVATING CO. v. TESTA

No. 2011-1536.

134 Ohio St.3d 565 (2012)

2012-Ohio-5776

BEAVER EXCAVATING COMPANY ET AL., Appellants, v. TESTA, TAX COMMR., Appellee.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided December 7, 2012.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, L.L.P., and Thomas Ridgley , Anthony Ehler , Jeffrey Miller , and Robert Krummen , for appellants.

Michael DeWine , Attorney General, Stephen Carney and Matthew Hampton , Deputy Solicitors, and Julie Bringer and Barton Hubbard , Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Peck, Shaffer & Williams, L.L.P., Thomas A. Luebbers , and Victor A. Linnebom , urging affirmance on behalf of amici curiae County Commissioners Association of Ohio, Ohio Municipal League, and Ohio School Boards Association.

Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Mark Engel , urging affirmance on behalf of amici curiae Ohio Manufacturers' Association and Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants.

Frederick A. Vierow , urging reversal for amicus curiae County Engineers Association of Ohio.

Brady, Coyle & Schmidt, Ltd., and Brian P. Barger , urging reversal on behalf of amici curiae Flexible Pavements, Inc., Ohio Aggregates and Industrial Minerals Association, and Ohio Ready Mix Concrete Association.

Timothy R. Fadel , urging reversal for amicus curiae International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18.

Ice Miller, L.L.P., and Patrick A. Devine , urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio Contractors Association.

Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Ralph Breitfeller , urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae Ohio Equipment Dealers Association.

Jennifer Rhoads , urging reversal on behalf of amici curiae Ohio Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association.

Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., Thomas Rosenberg , and Michael Traven , urging reversal on behalf of amicus curiae American Council of Engineering Companies of Ohio.


CUPP, J.

{¶ 1} This case challenges the constitutionality of the Ohio commercial-activity tax ("CAT"), R.C. Chapter 5751, as applied to gross receipts from motor-vehicle-fuel sales. In particular, we are asked to determine whether the imposition of the CAT on revenues derived from the sales of motor-vehicle fuel is unconstitutional because it contravenes the Ohio Constitution, Article XII, Section 5a. For the reasons that follow, we...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases