Legal Opinion
City of Youngstown v. Traylor
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 26, 2009No. 2008-1460PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.
{¶ 1} Today we must decide whether a Youngstown ordinance that requires vicious dogs to be confined and requires the state to prove at trial that the dog is vicious or dangerous as an element of the offense violates procedural due process. Because we hold that the ordinance does not violate due process, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the conviction.
Facts
{¶ 2} On April 18, 2007, at 8:00 a.m., David Roch was walking his 16-pound wire fox terrier in Mill Creek Park in Youngstown, Ohio, when he was approached by two unaccompanied Italian mastiff/Cane Corso dogs, one…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- State v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- State v. HaydenOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. HaydenOhio Supreme Court · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. WarwickOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
- State v. KollerOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Estate of Hersh v. SchwartzOhio Court of Appeals · 2011
- Hise v. Laiviera, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Monroe County2018
- Lima v. StepletonOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.