VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.

Ohio Supreme Court

VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.

684 N.E.2d 90, 79 Ohio St. 3d 1507

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 17, 1997

Docket97-1384

StatusPublished

This text of 684 N.E.2d 90 (VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

VFW Post 8586 v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 684 N.E.2d 90, 79 Ohio St. 3d 1507 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Ashland App. No. 96COA1167. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed June 26,1997:

“This cause comes before us upon appellee’s motion to certify a conflict between our opinion in the within and opinions issued by other courts of appeals.

“Upon review, we find our opinion is in conflict with: Loom Lodge 1473 v. Liquor Control Commission (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 109 [641 N.E.2d 1182], 3d District Court of Appeals; A.L. Post 0014 v. Liquor Control Commission (July 25, 1989), Ross Appellate #1482, unreported, 4th Appellate District; A.L. Post 0046 v. Liquor Control Commission (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 795 [677 N.E.2d 384], 6th Appellate District, and Mills-Jennings of Ohio, Inc. v. Liquor Control Commission (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 290 [16 OBR 321, 475 N.E.2d 1321], 10th Appellate District.

“The motion to certify conflict is sustained.

“Pursuant to App.R. 25(A), we certify the following issue of law to the Ohio Supreme Court for review and final resolution:

“Whether mere possession of gambling devices [on liquor permit premises] violates Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-53.”

Moyer, C.J., dissents.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 97-1383, infra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ashland App. No. 96COA1167. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed June 26,1997:

“This cause comes before us upon appellee’s motion to certify a conflict between our opinion in the within and opinions issued by other courts of appeals.

“Upon review, we find our opinion is in conflict with: Loom Lodge 1473 v. Liquor Control Commission (1994), 95 Ohio App.3d 109 [641 N.E.2d 1182], 3d District Court of Appeals; A.L. Post 0014 v. Liquor Control Commission (July 25, 1989), Ross Appellate #1482, unreported, 4th Appellate District; A.L. Post 0046 v. Liquor Control Commission (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 795 [677 N.E.2d 384], 6th Appellate District, and Mills-Jennings of Ohio, Inc. v. Liquor Control Commission (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 290 [16 OBR 321, 475 N.E.2d 1321], 10th Appellate District.

“The motion to certify conflict is sustained.

“Pursuant to App.R. 25(A), we certify the following issue of law to the Ohio Supreme Court for review and final resolution:

“Whether mere possession of gambling devices [on liquor permit premises] violates Ohio Adm.Code 4301:1-1-53.”

Moyer, C.J., dissents.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 97-1383, infra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 N.E.2d 90, 79 Ohio St. 3d 1507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vfw-post-8586-v-ohio-liquor-control-comm-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack