Legal Opinion

City of Akron v. Smith

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided July 8, 1992No. 15424PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Reece, Judge.

This appeal by plaintiff-appellant, city of Akron, questions whether the Akron Municipal Court properly sentenced defendant-appellee, Roger Smith, after finding him guilty on October 31, 1991 of failing to adequately secure a pit bull terrier, Akron Codified Ordinance (“ACO”) 92.25(E)(5), and allowing the animal to go unconfined on the premises of another, ACO 92.25(E)(7). 1 On November 1, 1991, Smith was ordered, in respect to the first count, to pay $500 plus costs. The trial judge refused to ban the pit bull from the city since Smith was not the owner of the animal. As for the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bozza v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Munic. Court v. State, Ex Rel.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933
  3. State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. State v. CravensOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. State ex rel. City of Cleveland v. CalandraOhio Supreme Court · 1980

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. City of Cincinnati v. HowardOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  2. State v. BurdenOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. State v. BurkeOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. State v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. State v. GlasscockOhio Court of Appeals · 1993

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API