2017
State v. Arnold, 3rd Dist. Seneca No. 13-16-13, 2017-Ohio-326. Defendant was the keeper of a dog which mauled a mailman, but had no prior history of violence. The court found that this dog was a “vicious” dog according to R.C. 955.11 even though it had no prior history of attacks. However, the dissenting opinion argues against this ruling, stating that the dog must have a prior history of attacks to qualify as a “vicious” dog.
2016
City of Middleburg Heights v. Troyan, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 103710, 103711, 103712, and 103713, 2016-Ohio-5625. Defendant’s challenge that R.C. 955.22(C) is unconstitutional because it imposes strict liability and violated her due process rights was overruled by the appellate court.
Deckard v. Greene Cnty. Animal Control, 2nd Dist. Greene No. 2016-CA-8, 2016-Ohio-7981. Plaintiff’s dog was ruled to be “dangerous” because he failed three times to confine it under R.C. 955.22(C).
Henry Cnty. Dog Warden v. Henry Cnty. Humane Soc’y, 2016-Ohio-7541, 64 N.E.3d 1076 (3rd Dist.). The Humane Society was found to be the keepers of a “dangerous” dog because it had injured two children.
Lucas Cnty. Pit Crew v. Fulton Cnty. Dog Warden, 6th Dist. Fulton No. F-16-003, 2016-Ohio-8526. Plaintiff claimed that R.C. 955.11(A)(1)(a) was unconstitutionally vague because it did not adequately define “injury”. The appellate court overruled and said the statute is constitutional because the common meaning of “injury” is appropriate.
Moore v. Warden, London Corr. Inst., S.D.Ohio No. 2:14-cv-572, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3053 (Jan. 11, 2016). Plaintiff’s dogs attacked and injured several people. The court at *20 states that pit bulls are considered a “vicious” breed under Ohio Law.
State v. Thompkins, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-160391, C-160392, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4685 (Nov. 18, 2016). Defendant’s charges under R.C. 955.22 were dropped from first degree misdemeanor to fourth degree misdemeanor because her dog was considered “dangerous” but not “vicious”.
T.B.Y. v. City of Martins Ferry, 7th Dist. No. 16 BE 0002, 2016-Ohio-8482. Defendant was keeping a dog in a kennel that had bitten and injured a child. The dog escaped, and Plaintiff sued because the city had failed to contain the dog. However, the court recognized that the city had immunity from such an action.
2015
Edwards v. Knox County, 5th Dist. Knox Nos. 14CA15 and 14CA17, 2015-Ohio-1320. Plaintiff’s dogs were found to be “vicious” after attacking a child.
State v. Peterson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27582, 2015-Ohio-3019. Defendant’s dog attacked another dog and the court ruled that it must be humanely destroyed. The appellate court acknowledged that the trial court erred in assuming that pit bulls are labelled “vicious” simply because of their breed (¶13-14). However, this error did not affect the outcome of the case.
2013
City of Lima v. Stepleton, 2013-Ohio-5655, 5 N.E.3d 721 (3rd Dist.). A Lima City Ordinance that defined pit bulls as “vicious” was ruled to be in conflict with the Ohio Rev. Code and was therefore ruled to be unconstitutional.
Spangler v. Stark County Dog Warden, 2013-Ohio-4774, 999 N.E.2d 1247 (5th Dist.). Plaintiff’s dog was ruled “dangerous” after it attacked another dog.
State v. Crocker, 5th Dist. Coshocton No. 2012 CA 0021, 2013-Ohio-3100. Defendant’s dog was considered “dangerous” at the time that it attacked and killed another dog, even though it had no prior history of attacks. Therefore, the owner was convicted of a fourth-degree misdemeanor.
State v. Moore, 10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 11AP-1116, 11AP-1117, 2013-Ohio-3365. The court applied the standard that pit bulls are labelled “vicious” because that was how the Revised Code defined vicious dogs at the time of the incident.
State v. Smith, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-12-1290, 2013-Ohio-2026. Defendant was convicted for only the second time for failure to confine his dog. Therefore, the dog was not to be labeled “dangerous”.
2012
State v. Jackson, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-04-094, 2012-Ohio-5843. Defendant was found not guilty for failure to confine their dog under R.C. 955.22 because it was trained to remain on their property and did not leave their property during the event in question.