The State of Ohio vs. Anderson No. 89-2113

Reads:

1,277

Uploaded:

01/21/2010

Category:

Research>Law

Rated:

(2 Ratings)

Copyright:

Attribution Non-commercial

The State of Ohio vs. Anderson
No. 89-2113
Supreme Court of Ohio
57 Ohio St. 3d 168; (1991)

Summary: The State of Ohio challenged a decision of th... (More) The State of Ohio vs. Anderson
No. 89-2113
Supreme Court of Ohio
57 Ohio St. 3d 168; (1991)

Summary: The State of Ohio challenged a decision of the Tenth District Court of Appeal (Ohio), which affirmed a trial court's finding that the Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) was unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the appellate court's ruling and remanded the case for trial on the charges.

The high court stated: "In sum, we reject the appellee's contention that the phrase "commonly known as a pit bull" is so devoid of meaning that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness."

In general, this means that owners of dogs that conform to dogs "commonly known as a pit bull," (despite the owner's claim that the dog is American bulldog or cane corso) fall under the Ohio state pit bull statue. (Less)