Legal Opinion

Bridgeport v. F. O. E.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 8, 1954No. 894PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

It is now settled that "bingo" for any purpose whatsoever is unlawful in Ohio. See City of Columbus v. Barr, 160 Ohio St. 209, 115 N.E.2d 391.

Ordinance No. 669 of the village of Bridgeport, Belmont County, Ohio, in force on January 21, 1952, provides as follows:

"Ordinance No. 669 — To prohibit gambling and provide penalties for violations.
"Be it ordained by the council of the village of Bridgeport, state of Ohio:
"Section 1. That it shall be unlawful to keep or exhibit for gain, a gambling device or machine by whatever name or designation it may be known, within the village of Bridgeport, Ohio.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. Fremont Lodge of Loyal Order of MooseOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  2. State v. Associates Investment Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1975
  2. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1. v. Kenosha Education Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API