Displaying 61 - 70 of 96
Titlesort descending Summary
OH - Reynoldsburg - Breed - 505.35 Control and harboring of vicious or dangerous dogs and other vicious or dangerous animals.

In Reynoldsburg, Ohio, no person shall own, keep, or harbor any vicious dog, which includes any pit bull dog. A violation is a misdemeanor of the second degree, and the vicious dog shall be seized, impounded, and humanely destroyed.

OH - Trust - Chapter 5804. Creation, Validity, Modification and Termination of Trust

Ohio enacted its pet trust law in 2007. A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.

OH - Veterinary - Chapter 4741. Veterinarians.

These are the state's veterinary practice laws.  Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners.

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. George Clayton George was convicted of raping two children of his girlfriend, age six and eight at the time of the crime. Among assignments of error on appeal was that the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing Avery, a facility dog, to accompany the two children during their testimony without a showing of necessity. On appeal, the defense argued that (1) unlike the facility dogs in Tohom, Spence, and Dye, Avery was “recognizable on the record while he was in court,” (2) the prosecution failed to show necessity for having Avery at trial, and (3) the standards set in Tohom, Spence, and Dye should have applied to determine whether Avery was permitted at trial. The appellate court noted that the defense had not objected to the presence of the dog during the trial nor had he made these three points at trial, meaning that the appellate court did not need to consider them for the first time on appeal under Ohio appellate law. The assignments of error were all overruled and the judgement of the trial court was affirmed.
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.