Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Youngstown v. Traylor

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 26, 2009No. 2008-1460Published

1DissentPfeifer, J.

{¶ 31} In State v. Cowan, 103 Ohio St.3d 144, 2004-Ohio-4777, 814 N.E.2d 846, at syllabus, we stated that R.C. 955.22, the statute addressing “vicious” dogs, “violates the constitutional right to procedural due process insofar as it fails to provide dog owners a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether a dog is ‘vicious.’ ” This conclusion answers the issue before us. Traylor was charged with not restraining a “vicious” dog, but he had no notice that his dog was “vicious.” In Cowan, the dog owner was aware that her dogs had been labeled vicious; she had merely not been given…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  2. Papachristou v. City of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. State v. CowanOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. City of ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  5. State v. PriceOhio Supreme Court · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API