Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lesnau v. Andate Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2015Id. {¶ 19} Pursuant to R.C. 4399.18: A person has a cause of action against a [liquor] permit holder * * * for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder's control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: (A) The permit holder or an employee of the permit holder knowingly sold an intoxicating beverage to * * *: (1) A noticeably intoxicated person in violation of division (B) of section 4301.22 of the Revised Code.4 *** (B 2006See Cummins v. Rubio (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 516 , 520 ; Lesnau v. Andate Enters. , 93 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2001-Ohio-1591 . {¶ 15} R.C. 4399.18 , "limitations on liability for acts of intoxicated person," provides the following: "A person has a cause of action against a permit holder or an employee of a permit holder for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder's control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: (A) The perm | 2 | 3 |
Cummins v. Rubiogreen1 sentence2006See Cummins v. Rubio (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 516 , 520 ; Lesnau v. Andate Enters. , 93 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2001-Ohio-1591 . {¶ 15} R.C. 4399.18 , "limitations on liability for acts of intoxicated person," provides the following: "A person has a cause of action against a permit holder or an employee of a permit holder for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder's control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: (A) The perm | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gressman v. McClain
green
2 sentences2018No. 14AP-468, 2015-Ohio-255 , this court stated: "The word 'knowingly' in R.C. 4399.18(A) describes the object of the sale, i.e., the 'noticeably intoxicated person.' * * * Moreover, the knowledge required by the statute is actual knowledge that the person buying the alcohol is noticeably intoxicated. * * * Constructive knowledge is insufficient." Id. at ¶ 19, citing Lesnau v. Andate Ents., Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 467, 472 (2001), and Gressman v. McClain, 40 Ohio St.3d 359, 363 (1988). 1990R.C. 4399.18 provides in pertinent part: "*** ^ person has a cause of action against a permit holder or his employee for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder's control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: "(A) The permit holder or his employee knowingly sold an intoxicating beverage to at least one of the following: "(1) A noticeably intoxicated person in violation of division (B) of section 4301.22 of the Revis | 3 | 1990–2018 |
Piras v. Screamin Willie's
neutral
1 sentence2018No. 14AP-468, 2015-Ohio-255 , this court stated: "The word 'knowingly' in R.C. 4399.18(A) describes the object of the sale, i.e., the 'noticeably intoxicated person.' * * * Moreover, the knowledge required by the statute is actual knowledge that the person buying the alcohol is noticeably intoxicated. * * * Constructive knowledge is insufficient." Id. at ¶ 19, citing Lesnau v. Andate Ents., Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 467, 472 (2001), and Gressman v. McClain, 40 Ohio St.3d 359, 363 (1988). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dresher v. Burt
green
1 sentence2015Id. {¶ 19} Pursuant to R.C. 4399.18: A person has a cause of action against a [liquor] permit holder * * * for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder's control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: (A) The permit holder or an employee of the permit holder knowingly sold an intoxicating beverage to * * *: (1) A noticeably intoxicated person in violation of division (B) of section 4301.22 of the Revised Code.4 *** (B | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lesnau v. Andate Enterprises, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2006See Cummins v. Rubio (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 516 , 520 ; Lesnau v. Andate Enters. , 93 Ohio St.3d 467 , 2001-Ohio-1591 . {¶ 15} R.C. 4399.18 , "limitations on liability for acts of intoxicated person," provides the following: "A person has a cause of action against a permit holder or an employee of a permit holder for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder's control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: (A) The perm | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Stillwell v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1996R.C. 4399.18 provides in part: “A person has a cause of action against a permit holder or his employee for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder’s control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: “(A) The permit holder or his employee knowingly sold an intoxicating beverage to at least one of the following: “(1) A noticeably intoxicated person in violation of division (B) of section 4301.22 of the Revised Code: “(2) 1996R.C. 4399.18 provides in part: “A person has a cause of action against a permit holder or his employee for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder’s control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence: “(A) The permit holder or his employee knowingly sold an intoxicating beverage to at least one of the following: “(1) A noticeably intoxicated person in violation of division (B) of section 4301.22 of the Revised Code: “(2) | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.