Legal Opinion

Pickaway County Skilled Gaming, L.L.C. v. Cordray

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 12, 2010No. 2009-1559PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.

{¶ 1} R.C. 2915.02(A)(2) states that no person shall “[establish, promote, or operate or knowingly engage in conduct that facilitates * * * any scheme of chance.” R.C. 2915.01(C) defines “scheme of chance”; the subsection specifically states that a “scheme of chance” does not include a skill-based amusement machine. These machines range from games (e.g., Skee-ball and Whac-a-Mole) commonly found at fair and amusement-park midways and in family fun centers to more sophisticated skill-based games found in the members-only arcade involved in this case. Although Ohio law permits the operation of…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
  5. Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. State v. Mole (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State v. Noling (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  3. State v. GreviousOhio Supreme Court · 2022
  4. Riverside v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  5. Sherman v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020

35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API