The Ohio Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's ruling that declared Risconi Bar & Kitchen, LLC, a nuisance due to repeated violations of liquor laws. This decision affects the bar's owners, Cherelle and Martez Jackson, who were found individually responsible for maintaining the nuisance. The ruling underscores the legal implications of operating a business that violates public safety regulations.

The case, Cincinnati v. Risconi Bar & Kitchen, L.L.C., was filed under docket number C-260057. It began when the City of Cincinnati sought to declare the bar a nuisance following numerous complaints about its operations. The court's decision, delivered on October 21, 2026, highlights the responsibilities of business owners in ensuring compliance with local laws.

Background

Risconi Bar & Kitchen, located in downtown Cincinnati, operated from 2022 until its eviction in 2025. The City of Cincinnati filed a complaint against the bar on July 12, 2024, alleging that it frequently violated liquor laws and fire codes. The complaint detailed instances of serving alcohol outside legal hours, selling to underage patrons, and exceeding occupancy limits.

The defendants in the case included Risconi Bar & Kitchen, LLC, Cherelle Jackson, the bar's sole member, and her husband, Martez Jackson. Initially, the City also named the property owner as a defendant but later dismissed claims against them after the bar was evicted. The City sought to declare the bar a nuisance and to prevent it from operating in the future.

The Ruling

The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Moore, ruled that the lower court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the City. The court found that there was no genuine dispute regarding the bar's status as a disorderly house nuisance under Ohio law. The court stated, "The record in this case is replete with violations of overcrowding and liquor sales to minors in which both Cherelle Jackson and Martez Jackson maintained control over the premises."

The court noted that the bar's eviction did not render the case moot, as the City sought a permanent injunction against the Jacksons to prevent them from operating a similar nuisance elsewhere. The court emphasized that the existence of a nuisance at any point justified the City's actions.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for bar owners and operators in Ohio. It reinforces the idea that business owners can be held personally liable for violations committed under their management. The court's decision clarifies that evidence of liquor law violations, such as selling alcohol to minors, is sufficient to establish a disorderly house nuisance.

As a result of this ruling, the Jacksons are permanently enjoined from maintaining a similar nuisance in the future, which may deter other bar owners from neglecting compliance with liquor laws. This case sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar disputes involving bars and other establishments accused of violating public safety regulations.

What's Next

While the court's decision is final, the Jacksons could potentially seek further legal recourse, such as appealing to a higher court. However, details about any related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.