Legal Opinion
State v. Anderson
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 13, 1991No. 89-2113PublishedCited by 154 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.
The question presented in this appeal is whether R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is constitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) provides in pertinent part:
“ ‘Vicious dog’ means any dog that, without provocation and subject to division (A)(4)(b) of this section, meets any of the following:
it* * *
“(iii) Belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog.”
The Tenth District Court…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- United States v. HarrissSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Coates v. City of CincinnatiSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- State ex rel. Jackman v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga CountyOhio Supreme Court · 1967
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by154 opinions
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Weigel v. MarylandDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2013
- State v. CollierOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- City of Akron v. RowlandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Matthews v. Amberwood Associates Ltd. Partnership, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
149 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.