City of Cleveland v. Thorne

3 Citing cases

  1. Benevolent & Protective Order Elks v. State

    239 Ariz. 121 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    Relying on Attorney General opinion in interpreting statute in absence of relevant case law (citing Ruiz v. Hull , 191 Ariz. 441, 449 ¶ 28, 957 P.2d 984, 992 (1998) )

    ¶ 21 The Elks' attempt to characterize the plays as “free,” or as charitable “donations” is also unavailing. Several courts have rejected similar arguments. For example, in Cleveland v. Thorne, 987 N.E.2d 731 (Ohio App.2013), a business attempted to implement a sweepstakes through the sale of internet time. For every dollar spent to purchase internet time, a customer received 100 sweepstakes points. Cleveland, 987 N.E.2d at 735, ¶ 2.

  2. State v. Stelljes

    No. 1 CA-CR 16-0108 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jun. 6, 2017)

    The State, however, presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that customers were buying game entries, not internet time. See City of Cleveland v. Thorne, 987 N.E.2d 731, 735 (Ohio App. 2013) (receipt of sweepstakes points for every dollar spent to purchase internet time was gambling when customers' primary purpose was to participate in sweepstakes). According to the record, customers with large balances of internet time on their cards continued to buy additional cards entitling them to game entries.

  3. J & C Mktg., L.L.C. v. McGinty

    4 N.E.3d 1063 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    {¶ 4} The question presently before this court is not the legality of internet sweepstakes cafés in Cuyahoga County. Recently in Cleveland v. Thorne, 2013-Ohio-1029, 987 N.E.2d 731, this court upheld the convictions of certain proprietors of “cyber cafés” or “internet cafés” for sweepstakes ventures that this court found to constitute gambling in violation of Cleveland Codified Ordinances (“CCO”) 611.02(a)(2), 611.05 (operating a gambling house) and 625.08 (possession of criminal tools). {¶ 5} Our role in the present appeal is not to judge the outcome of this case.