Hill v. Micham
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It is conceded that the dog in question was not registered and was not listed for taxation as required by Sections 5652, 5652-2, and 5837, of the General Code. Section 5652 provides, in substance, that on or before the 1st day of January of each year every person who owns a dog shall file an application for registration, with a description of the dog, and pay a registration fee.
Section 5652-2 of the General Code provides:
“Every person immediately upon becoming the owner, * * * of any dog * * * during any year, shall file like applications, with fees, as required by Sections 5652…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Heiligmann v. RoseTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Parker v. MiseSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Citizens' Rapid Transit Co. v. DewTennessee Supreme Court · 1898
- Lacker v. StraussMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Ten Hopen v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. BeckleyOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Wagner v. Circle W. MastiffsDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2010
- Prosen v. DuffyOhio Supreme Court · 1949
- State v. WilliamsOhio Court of Appeals · 1952
- Strawser v. WrightOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.