Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2915.04 (2026)

Public gaming

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) No person, while at a hotel, restaurant, tavern, store, arena, hall, or other place of public accommodation, business, amusement, or resort shall make a bet or play any game of chance or scheme of chance.

(B) No person, being the owner or lessee, or having custody, control, or supervision, of a hotel, restaurant, tavern, store, arena, hall, or other place of public accommodation, business, amusement, or resort shall recklessly permit those premises to be used or occupied in violation of division (A) of this section.

(C) Divisions (A) and (B) of this section do not prohibit conduct in connection with gambling expressly permitted by law.

(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of public gaming. Except as otherwise provided in this division, public gaming is a minor misdemeanor. If the offender previously has been convicted of any gambling offense, public gaming is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(E) Premises used or occupied in violation of division (B) of this section constitute a nuisance subject to abatement under Chapter 3767. of the Revised Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1955–2009 · leading case: State v. McDonald, 509 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McDonald, 509 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio 1987). “Five persons who participate in a betting pool each time they attend a football game would fall within this definition of a criminal syndicate because their conduct constitutes a violation of R.C. 2915.04, governing public gaming. These persons, however, without clear notice…”
Amusement Devices Ass'n v. State of Ohio, 443 F. Supp. 1040 (S.D. Ohio 1977). “” For example, “public gaming,” which under R.C. 2915.04 includes placing a bet while at any place of public accommodation, is a minor misdemeanor in the absence of any prior gambling offenses.”
Westerhaus, Inc. v. Cincinnati (City), 127 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 4× “In his concisions of law, the Special Master Commissioner holds that these two machines, owned and distributed by the plaintiff, are gambling devices within the meaning of §§2915.04 and 2915.15 R. C. and lotteries under Art.”
Pickaway Cnty. Skilled Gaming, L.L.C. v. Cordray, 917 N.E.2d 305 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “02 and the public gaming prohibition of R.C. 2915.04, and are permitted to engage in particular types of regulated gambling activities; permit holders are prohibited from establishing a satellite facility (a facility for parimutuel wagering 3 ) if they have been convicted of a…”
Lavery v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm'n, 679 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “02[D][1] and [D][2]; R.C. 2915.04). The trial court concluded that the tip tickets “could be either a scheme of chance * * * and/or a game of chance[.”
Kelly Greens Inv. Co. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm'n, 675 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “The offense implicated in this case is R.C. 2915.04, which makes it illegal to engage in or permit the playing of games of chance.”
Westerhaus Co. v. City of Cincinnati, 165 Ohio St. (N.S.) 327 (Ohio 1956). · cites it 2× “15, Revised Code [formerly Section 13066, General Code], and the operation of such machines constitutes a ‘game to be played for gain’ within the meaning of Section 2915.04, Revised Code [formerly Section 13056, General Code], because both of such machines are predominately…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2915.04(B): 1 case
Lavery v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm'n, 679 N.E.2d 57 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “02[D][1] and [D][2]; R.C. 2915.04). The trial court concluded that the tip tickets “could be either a scheme of chance * * * and/or a game of chance[.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2915.04(C): 1 case
Kelly Greens Inv. Co. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm'n, 675 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “The offense implicated in this case is R.C. 2915.04, which makes it illegal to engage in or permit the playing of games of chance.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.