Mills-Jennings of Ohio, Inc. v. Department of Liquor Control
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.
*97I.
The issue presented for our determination is whether Draw Poker machines are gambling devices per se as defined in R. C. 2915.01(F). Appellants contend, and the trial court agreed, that the device is an amusement device and not a gambling device per se. The foundation of the trial court’s decision was that the successful playing of the machines required some skill and the results obtained were not wholly dependent upon chance. Appellees contend, and the Court of Appeals held, that the intent of the General Assembly as set forth in the statute is clear and that the playing of poker is a game…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. SingerOhio Supreme Court · 1977
- State ex rel. Brilliant Electric Sign Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
- In re Adoption of McDermittOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Stillmaker v. Dept. of Liquor ControlOhio Supreme Court · 1969
- Kroger Co. v. CookOhio Supreme Court · 1970
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Garono v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Racing Guild of Ohio, Local 304 v. Ohio State Racing CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- CITATION BINGO, LTD. v. OttenNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1995
- Score Family Fun Center, Inc. v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.