Court Opinion

ID: 9730855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:26:27.834935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:10.195461
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I join in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Larsen. Prior to the hearing of this appeal I might not have thought *535of “broadcasting” as “manufacturing” had the question been raised in general dinner conversation. In this appeal, however, we are called upon to consider the meaning of the word “manufacturing” by litigants who are entitled to have the same definition applied to them as has been applied to past litigants. Fairness requires that we apply a given definition uniformly to all those who claim the benefit of the manufacturing exemption. The Legislature has not provided a definition. If this were a case of first impression the word might be considered so vague or elusive in definition that it would be given no legal effect. As the opinions of Mr. Justice Roberts and Mr. Justice Larsen point out, however, this Court has given legal definition to the term “manufacturing.” Having done so, that definition should be controlling. The facts in this case support the appellants’ argument that they fall within the definition previously announced by this Court. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled to the relief which they seek.