Legal Opinion
Stillmaker v. Dept. of Liquor Control
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 18, 1969No. 68-283PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMatthias, J.
The question before this court is whether the machines involved in the instant case are gambling devices per se.
The machines are of the pinball variety, and were put into evidence and actually operated for the Court of Common Pleas. Their operation is well described in appellants’ brief as follows:
“ * * * In many respects their operation is no differ*202ent than that of the usual ‘pinball’ machine. The insertion of a coin, a dime in this instance, activates the machine and provides the player with five metal balls which, by the use of a spring-loaded plunger, may be propelled with varying degrees…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kraus v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1939
3Cited by10 opinions
- Pickaway County Skilled Gaming, L.L.C. v. CordrayOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Mills-Jennings of Ohio, Inc. v. Department of Liquor ControlOhio Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. WassickWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1972
- Games Management, Inc. v. OwensSupreme Court of Kansas · 1983
- Amusement Devices Ass'n v. State of OhioDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1977
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.