¶1concurring. I concur in the syllabus and in the judgment of the court, believing that when a legislature adopts the words of a statute of another state it also adopts “the law” of such statute. Thus, when the Ohio General Assembly borrowed the predecessor of Section 5731.02 (D), Revised Code, from Massachusetts, it also adopted the limitation imposed by Walker v. Treasurer and Receiver General (1915), 221 Mass. 600, that the statute does not apply to cases where the property is not within the taxing state and where the transfer may be accomplished without reference to the law of the taxing state. Therefore, Section 5731.02 (D), Revised Code, is not intended to apply to the instant case. Since this is so, I find the remainder of the majority opinion unnecessary to the disposition of this case, for no one contends that the Walkerlimitation is itself unconstitutional. It may have resulted from an erroneous fear of unconstitutionality, as the dissent labors to point out, but that is not relevant. The Walkerlimitation, even if the product of an erroneous viewpoint, is part of the legislative intent of the statute.
4 Ohio St. 2d 89
Schneider v. Laffoon
Decided December 22, 1965
Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1965-12-22
Relies on Walker v. Treasurer & Receiver General
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1965-12-22
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably In-Flight Devices Corp. v. Van Dusen Air, Inc. (1972), Davis H. Elliot Co. v. Caribbean Utilities Co. (1975)
6 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →