Legal Opinion

Hill v. Skinner

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 26, 1947No. 3880PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoyle, P. J.

This is an action under the Ohio statute (Section 5838, General Code), seeking to hold the owners and harborers of a dog called “Chang” with liability for damages arising out of an episode in which the dog, Chang, is alleged to have seized with his teeth and injured a youngster aged approximately four, the petitioner herein.

A jury, upon trial, awarded damages in the amount ■of $500. The judgment rendered thereon, in the Court •of Common Pleas of Summit county, is a part of the final order from which this appeal is taken, and consideration will be first given to the legality of this money…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. WildmanOhio Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Bake v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Dragonette v. BrandesOhio Supreme Court · 1939

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. State v. WallaceOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State v. DuncanOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Hildreth v. KeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960
  4. State v. CobbOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. State v. ManloveNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1968

18 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