Legal Opinion
City of Toledo v. Tellings
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 1, 2007No. 2006-0690PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, the city of Toledo, appeals from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Lucas County that held R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.14 unconstitutional. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
{¶ 2} Appellee, Paul Tellings, a resident of the city of Toledo, owned three dogs identified as pit bulls. Tellings was charged by the city for violating Toledo Municipal Code 505.14(a) and R.C. 955.22. The Toledo Municipal Code limits ownership of vicious dogs, as defined in R.C. 955.11, or dogs commonly known as pit bulls or pit bull…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Savoie v. Grange Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. AndersonOhio Supreme Court · 1991
- Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- State v. ThompkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Beagle v. WaldenOhio Supreme Court · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Dias v. City and County of DenverCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2009
- Tracey v. SoleskyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
- City of Youngstown v. TraylorOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- In re D.R.Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
- L.C. Canyon Partners, L.L.C. v. Salt Lake CountyUtah Supreme Court · 2011
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.