Garono v. State

Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided 1988-06-15

Cited by 164 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Wright, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. While I concur with the holding that video poker machines are gambling devices per se under R.C. 2915.01(F)(3), I cannot agree that the four machines involved in this case should be returned to appellee. The majority opinion asserts that, because there is no evidence of a violation of gambling laws, the poker machines cannot be classified as “…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.