Ohio

Displaying 61 - 70 of 92
Titlesort descending Summary
OH - Warrensville Heights - Breed - 505.20 Pit Bull Terriers.


In Warrensville Heights, Ohio, no person may own, keep or harbor a pit bull terrier, defined as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, an American Staffordshire Terrier, or any mixture. No exceptions are made,

OH - Wildlife possession - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. Restoration, Possession, and Transportation of Wildlife


These Ohio statutes regulate possession of wildlife. These laws make it illegal to transport fish, game birds, or wild quadrupeds or any part thereof, unless in a container with a label showing certain information. However, no one may transport certain game birds and game quadrupeds out of state. No person may fish in any of the waters in the state without a license, including taking frogs or turtles. However, people fishing in privately owned waters are exempt from the license requirements.

OH - Wooster - Breed - 505.14 Dangerous and vicious animals.


In Wooster, Ohio, no person may possess, harbor or keep a vicious animal, which includes any Pit Bull dog. A violation is a misdemeanor of the first degree. The dog or other vicious animal may be removed from the City or be humanely destroyed.

OH - Youngstown - Breed - 505.191 Prohibition of Pit Bull Terriers.


In Youngstown, Ohio, no person may own, keep, harbor or possess a Pit Bull Terrier, with an exception for dogs previously registered. However, such dogs must be kept in compliance with mandatory requirements, such as being properly confined or kept on a leash with a muzzle. The owner must also post a "Beware of Dog” sign and keep liability insurance. A violation is a misdemeanor and may result in the dog being impounded and humanely destroyed.

OH - Zanesville - Exotic - CHAPTER 505. Animals and Fowl


These Ohio ordinances cover a diversity of legal areas pertaining to animals, including the following: animals running at large, registration of dogs, abandoning, killing, or injuring animals, barking dogs, and dangerous animals.

Ohio v. Hale


Defendant-Appellant, Norman Hale, appeals the decision of the Monroe County Court that found him guilty of multiple counts of cruelty to animals in violation of R.C. 959.13(A)(4). Hale argues that this statute is unconstitutionally vague, that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the trial court imposed improper sanctions upon him. The court disregard Hale's constitutional argument since he failed to provide legal argument in support of this claim. Hale's argument that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence also is meritless since the evidence in the record supports the trial court's decision that he recklessly failed to provide these dogs with wholesome exercise. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when imposing the sanctions since the conditions of his probation were related to the underlying offense and served the ends of rehabilitation. For these reasons, the trial court's decision was affirmed.

Perkins v. Hattery


This Ohio case examined the propriety of a county dog warden killing a dog that had killed a sheep nine hours before such seizure.  The Court of Appeals held that dog warden was not authorized to destroy or otherwise dispose of a duly licensed dog found and seized by such warden upon the premises of its owner following a complaint made to the warden by the owner of sheep that the dog had killed certain of his sheep approximately nine hours before such seizure.

Petersheim v. Corum


Driver struck bull that had wandered onto a public highway and driver was killed.  Court of appeals ruled for wife in a wrongful death action against the bull's owner.  The owner had a duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the bull's escape.

Ray and Marie Powers v. Wesley and Mary Tincher


While plaintiff’s complaint and demand focus on the threats and alleged actions of trespass by defendants, the Common Pleas Court’s decision focuses instead on the defendant’s request for injunctive relief based on a nuisance violation. Specifically, defendants apparently alleged that plaintiff’s keeping of over one hundred roosters constituted a private nuisance. Relying on a case of similar facts, the court held that plaintiffs’ keeping of over one hundred roosters for the purpose of cockfighting constituted a private nuisance.

Southall v. Gabel


This case resulted from the alleged negligent transport of a horse that resulted in a drastic change in the horse's temperament (to a "killer horse"), which ultimately led to its destruction by its owner.  Before trial, defendant demurred to plaintiff's petition on the ground that the action was barred under R.C. s 2305.11, the act being 'malpractice' and therefore required to be brought within one year after the termination of treatment.  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's decision overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's petition was correct, 'the petitioner is based on negligence for the transporting rather than malpractice.'  Further, the Court held that until the Supreme Court speaks, veterinarians are not included in the definition of malpractice (reversed and remanded -

See

,

293 N.E.2d 891

(Ohio, Mun.,1972).

Pages