Peerless Electric Co. v. Bowers

Ohio Supreme Court

Peerless Electric Co. v. Bowers

164 Ohio St. (N.S.) 209

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 19, 1955

DocketNos. 34346, 34347, 34348, 34349 & 34350

StatusPublished

This text of 164 Ohio St. (N.S.) 209 (Peerless Electric Co. v. Bowers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peerless Electric Co. v. Bowers, 164 Ohio St. (N.S.) 209 (Ohio 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Board of Tax Appeals was correct in affirming the orders of the Tax Commissioner on authority of the Fifth Third Union Trust Go. case, supra. The equal protection clause of the federal Constitution does not assure uniformity of judicial decisions. The general rule is that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation, and the effect is not that the former was bad law, but that it never was the law. The one'general exception to this rule is where contractual rights have arisen or vested rights have been acquired under the prior decision. The assessment and payment of a tax does not grow out of a contractual relationship, and there is no showing that any rights have become vested in the appellants under such prior decision.

Decision affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Bell and Taft, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The Board of Tax Appeals was correct in affirming the orders of the Tax Commissioner on authority of the Fifth Third Union Trust Go. case, supra. The equal protection clause of the federal Constitution does not assure uniformity of judicial decisions. The general rule is that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation, and the effect is not that the former was bad law, but that it never was the law. The one'general exception to this rule is where contractual rights have arisen or vested rights have been acquired under the prior decision. The assessment and payment of a tax does not grow out of a contractual relationship, and there is no showing that any rights have become vested in the appellants under such prior decision.

Decision affirmed.

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Bell and Taft, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 Ohio St. (N.S.) 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peerless-electric-co-v-bowers-ohio-1955.