From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

P. Electric Co. v. Bowers

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 19, 1955
164 Ohio St. 209 (Ohio 1955)

Summary

In Peerless Elec. Co. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 209, 57 O.O. 411, 129 N.E.2d 467, this court held, "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 was never the law."

Summary of this case from Dicenzo v. A-Best Prods. Co., Inc.

Opinion

Nos. 34346, 34347, 34348, 34349 and 34350

Decided October 19, 1955.

Taxation — Domestic corporations — Franchise tax — Tax base — Value of federal securities owned by corporation — Judicial decisions — Effect of overruling — Retrospective in operation.

APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals.

Appellants in the above cases filed with the Tax Commissioner their several applications for certificates of abatement of claimed overpayments of franchise taxes for the years variously from 1947 through 1951. The certificates of abatement were requested on the ground that the value of federal securities owned by appellants had been illegally included in the tax base in determining the franchise tax imposed on appellants for the years in question. Appellants base their claims on the decision in the case of Wrenn Paper Co. v. Glander, Tax Commr., 156 Ohio St. 583, 103 N.E.2d 756, contending that the same construction of the franchise-tax law should be applied here as was applied in the Wrenn case for the years 1945 through 1950, thus avoiding denying to taxpayers equal protection of the laws. They have abandoned their claims for the year 1951, which year was not involved in that case.

The Tax Commissioner denied the applications on authority of the decision in Fifth Third Union Trust Co. v. Peck, Tax Commr., 161 Ohio St. 169, 118 N.E.2d 398, which overruled the Wrenn Paper Co. case, supra.

Upon appeals to the Board of Tax Appeals, the several appeals were consolidated for hearing and the orders of the Tax Commissioner were affirmed.

Appeals from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals bring the causes to this court for review.

Messrs. Hoppe, Day Ford, for appellants.

Mr. C. William O'Neill, attorney general, and Mr. W.E. Herron, for appellee.


The Board of Tax Appeals was correct in affirming the orders of the Tax Commissioner on authority of the Fifth Third Union Trust Co. 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.


Summaries of

P. Electric Co. v. Bowers

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 19, 1955
164 Ohio St. 209 (Ohio 1955)

In Peerless Elec. Co. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 209, 57 O.O. 411, 129 N.E.2d 467, this court held, "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 was never the law."

Summary of this case from Dicenzo v. A-Best Prods. Co., Inc.

In Peerless Elec. Co. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 209, 210, 57 O.O. 411, 129 N.E.2d 467, 468, this court set forth the following general rule concerning the retroactivity of our decisions overruling prior 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."

Summary of this case from Ross v. Farmers Insurance Group of Companies

In Peerless Elec. Co. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 209, 57 O.O. 411, 129 N.E.2d 467, we held that, generally, a decision of this court overruling a previous decision is to be applied retrospectively with an exception for contractual or vested rights that have arisen under the previous decision.

Summary of this case from Wendell v. Ameritrust Co., N.A.

In Peerless Elec. Co. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 209, 210, 57 O.O. 411, 129 N.E.2d 467, 468, we stated, as a general rule, "* * * 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.

Summary of this case from Chicago Freight Car Leasing Co. v. Limbach

stating that "[i]n the absence of a specific provision in a decision declaring its application to be prospective only * * * the decision shall be applied retrospectively as well: `* * * [t]he general rule is that a decision of the 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'"

Summary of this case from Holt Co. of Ohio v. Ohio Machinery Co.

In Peerless Elec. Co. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 209, 210, appeal dismissed (1956), Van Huffel Tube Corp. v. Bowers, 352 U.S. 804, 77 S.Ct. 30, the Ohio Supreme Court noted that "[t]he 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.

Summary of this case from Kissinger v. Pavlus

In Peerless Elec. Co. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 209, 210, 129 N.E.2d 467, 468, the Supreme Court of Ohio set forth the following general rule concerning the retroactivity of its 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."

Summary of this case from Walters v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.

In Peerless Elec. Co. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 209, 210, 57 O.O. 411, 411, 129 N.E.2d 467, 468, the Ohio Supreme Court stated 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."

Summary of this case from Gollihue v. Consol. Rail Corp.

In Peerless Elec. Co. v. Bowers (1955), 164 Ohio St. 209, 210, 57 O.O. 411, 411, 129 N.E.2d 467, 468, the Ohio Supreme Court stated that when "a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overrul[es] a former decision [it becomes] retrospective in its operation, and the effect is not that the former was bad law, but that it never was the law."

Summary of this case from Starkey v. St. Rita's Medical Center
Case details for

P. Electric Co. v. Bowers

Case Details

Full title:THE PEERLESS ELECTRIC CO., APPELLANT v. BOWERS, TAX COMMR., APPELLEE. THE…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Oct 19, 1955

Citations

164 Ohio St. 209 (Ohio 1955)
129 N.E.2d 467

Citing Cases

Dicenzo v. A-Best Prods. Co., Inc.

{¶ 11} We now examine Ohio law addressing prospective/retroactive application of court decisions. In Peerless…

Wood v. American Aggregates Corp.

Therefore, in order for appellants to be entitled to damages for the entire four-year period, Cline must be…