“Article 5327: The term “credits” thus used means the excess of the sum of all claims and prepaid items used in the course of the activity, when each of these accounts and items is valued at its real monetary value, beyond the sum of the current debts of enterprises, excluding taxes and charges.” “Wheeling.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wheeling. Retrieved 11 December 2022. These sample phrases are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “wheeling”. The views expressed in the examples do not represent the views of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us your feedback. Nglish: Wheeling translation for Spanish speakers”. In that situation, and having been interpreted as such by the Oberster Gerichtshof of that State, pursuant to the provisions of the law at issue in the present case, it follows that, since the applicant`s claims in that case arose – as that Chamber finds – in the course of its activities in Ohio by the sale of its products from a warehouse situated in that State, and further, since such debts or their benefits have been or are expected to be used by the appellant in his business, whether in that state or elsewhere, such debts have a place of business and taxation in Ohio, as determined and determined by the Commissioner of Taxation. Without pretending to be a full analysis, I believe that in at least two cases in this legislature, the same issue as in this Parliament should be examined. In Railway Express v.
New York, 336 U. S. 106 A company claimed to be deprived of both due process and equal protection of the law, and in Ott v. Mississippi Barge Line, 336 U., at p. 169, a company argued that it had not received due process. In many cases, the issue was also inherent, as companies had made similar claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, for example, Illinois Central R. Co. v. Minnesota, 309 U., p. 157; Lincoln Life Insurance Co. v.
Read, 325 U., p. 673; Queenside Hills Co v. Saxl, 328 U., p. 80. Although the author of this dissent is the author of each of the Court`s opinions cited, this does not even imply that there is any doubt as to whether the companies were entitled to ask the questions or whether they were entitled to the protection of the amendment. Instead, in any event, as I did in the present case, the author continued to discuss and decide the company`s allegations in his case, a rather inappropriate procedure, I should think, if the company was not entitled to ask the constitutional questions. If society did not have such a right, it is difficult to see how this court would even have jurisdiction to hear the case. Under the long-established principles of our federation, Ohio was not required to allow these foreign companies to conduct domestic business within its borders. The State may arbitrarily exclude or authorize them under such conditions as it deems appropriate, except for the demanding task of the rights deriving from the Constitution of the United States. Hanover Insurance Co. v.
Harding, 272 U., pp. 494, 272 U. S. 507; Connecticut General Co. v. Johnson, 303 U. pp. 77, 303 U.
pp. 79-80. However, Ohio chose to allow these companies to do business and operate manufacturing facilities in the state. For this privilege, they paid whatever the state demanded as a franchise or lien tax, which, to its extent, includes the value of all Ohio real estate and businesses. Ohio General Code Sections 5495, 5497, 5498, and 5499. See International Harvester Co. v. Evatt, 329 U., p. 416. Once a state has decided to domesticate foreign companies, adopted companies are entitled to the same protections as the state`s own descendants, at least to the extent that Britannica.com: Encyclopedia articles on wheeling What was obvious to Justice Woods in 1871 was still clear to the court in 1873.
Mr. Justice Miller in the slaughterhouse cases, 16 wall. 36, 83 United States 71, promoted events that are “almost too recent to be called history” to show that the purpose of the amendment was to protect human rights—first and foremost, the rights of a race that had just won its freedom. And with regard to the equality protection clause, he explained: It can be said that in the above-mentioned cases, other reasons could have been found to thwart the companies` claims, whereas in this case there are clearly none. Businesses are not “citizens” within the meaning of the first sentence of the second sentence. Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U., pp.
359, 204 U. S. 363; Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U. pp. 112, 226 U. p. 126. [Footnote 2/2] In at least two cases, this court, joined by the two justices who now hold that corporations have no rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, recently awarded a remedy to corporations by rejecting government action as contrary to corporate rights under that amendment.
In Times-Mirror Co. v. California, companion to Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, a news company was satisfied that a $500 fine imposed on it violated its rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, a news organization was convicted with a single defendant, and that court overturned the conviction on the grounds that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited such government action.
In none of these cases was the company`s right to raise the issue called into question and the result was in any event inconsistent with the position now opposed. The Constitutional Position of Property in America, 64 Independent 834, 836 (1908). He went on to say that the Dartmouth College case (4 Wheat. 518) and the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Santa Clara case “have had the effect of placing modern industrial enterprise in an almost impregnable constitutional position.” Id., p. 836. See Chicago & R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U., p. 418; Golf, Colorado & Santa Fe R. Co. v.
Ellis, 165 U.S. 150; Cotting v. Kansas City Stockyards Co., 183 U., p. 79; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U., at p. 540; Southern R. Co. v.
Greene, 216 U.S. 400; Herndon vs. Chicago, Rock Island and Pac. R. Co., 218 U., p. 135; Roach v. Atchison, T. & Santa Fe R. Co., 218 U., p. 159; Atchison & Santa Fe R. Co. v.
Vosburg, 238 U. S. 56; Gast Realty Co. gegen Schneider Granite Co., 240 U. S. 55; McFarland gegen American Sugar Co., 241 U. S. 79; Royster Guano Co. gegen Virginia, 253 U.
S. 412; Bethlehem Motors Co. gegen Flynt, 256 U. S. 421; Kansas City So. Co. v. Road Imp. Dist. Nr. 6, 256 U. S.
658; Chicago & N.W. R. Co. gegen Nye Co., 260 U. S. 35; Sioux City Bridge gegen Dakota County, 260 U. S. 441; Thomas v. Kansas City So.
R. Co., 261 U. S. 481; Kentucky Co. gegen Paramount Exch., 262 U. S. 544; Air-Way Corp. gegen Tag, 266 U. S. 71; Hanover Ins.
Co. c. Harding, 272 U. S. 494; Power Co. gegen Saunders, 274 U. S. 490; Louisville Gas Co.
gegen Coleman, 277 U. S. 32; Quaker City Cab Co. gegen Pennsylvanie, 277 U. S. 389; Cumberland Coal Co. gegen Board, 284 U. S. 23; Liggett Co. gegen Lee, 288 U.
S. 517; Concordia Ins. Co. c. Illinois, 292 U. S. 535; Stewart Dry Goods Co c. Lewis, 294 U. S.
550; Mayflower Farms gegen Ten Eyck, 297 U. S. 266; Hartford Co. gegen Harrison, 301 U. S. 459. It has never been decided that these are persons whose “life” cannot be deprived by a State within the meaning of the second sentence of the second sentence. “On appeal of the Tax Appeals Board`s decision in Ransom & Randolph Co. to the Ohio Supreme Court, this court overturned the Tax Appeals Board`s decision on the above point. 142 Ohio St. 398, 404, 52 N.E.2d 738. The court held, taking into account the applicable provisions of Article 5328-2 and related articles of the General Code, that the claims of a taxpayer arising from the exercise of his activity in one or more States other than that in which he was domiciled or domiciled have an establishment in that other State or these other States: where such claims or their benefits are enforced or are to be applied in the course of the taxpayer`s business in that State or elsewhere.