Legal Opinion

Kraus v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 1, 1939No. 27245PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

It may be stated as a general rule that an automatic or mechanical machine which discharges tokens or slugs of a size and shape capable of being replayed into the machine, in reward for successful play, is a gambling device per se. The types of machines described in the ordinance as licensable fall within this rule.

The language in the ordinance, “whether accompanied by the return of tokens, slugs or any other evidence of the result of such operation or not,” makes the device so returning tokens or slugs licensable, though the return and the number of tokens returned and the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gaither v. CateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1929
  2. Painter v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1932
  3. State Ex Rel. Manchester v. MarvinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1930
  4. State v. Mint Vending MacHine No. 195084Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1931
  5. Myers v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1934

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. TINDER, PROS. ATTY. v. Music Op. Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1957
  2. Pickaway County Skilled Gaming, L.L.C. v. CordrayOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  3. People v. One Pinball Machine Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1942
  4. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Amusement, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. State v. WileySupreme Court of Iowa · 1942

33 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