Ohio Supreme Court· 6/6/1973
Gressel Produce Co. v. Kosydar
Citations
- 34 Ohio St. 2d 206
- 297 N.E.2d 532
- 63 Ohio Op. 2d 314
- 1973 Ohio LEXIS 369
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- cleaning, cooling, sorting, and application of oil to eggs did not constitute “processing” because there was no change in the state or form of the eggs
- cleaning, cooling, sorting, and application of oil to eggs did not constitute \processing\ because there was no change in the state or form of the eggs
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brown, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbekt, Neill, Stebít
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Beare Co. v. Tennessee Department of RevenueTennessee Supreme Court· 1993-07-12· cited 92×
- In Re Tax Appeal of Collingwood Grain, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1995-03-10· cited 58×
- Ballard's Farm Sausage, Inc. v. DaileyWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1978-07-11· cited 7×
- Van Dyne Crotty Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court· 1990-08-01· cited 6×
- General Mills, Inc. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court· 1988-03-16· cited 3×
- WALKER'S, INC. v. FarrCourt of Appeals of Tennessee· 2010-09-07· cited 2×
- DeNoon v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court· 1989-04-12· cited 1×
- Byrd and Frederickson, Inc. v. ForstRockingham County Circuit Court· 1974-09-11
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.