Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 715.23 (2026)

Impounding and sale of fowl or animals

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except as otherwise provided in section 955.10 of the Revised Code regarding dogs, a municipal corporation may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large, within the municipal corporation, of cattle, horses, swine, sheep, goats, geese, chickens, or other fowl or animals, impound and hold the fowl or animals, and, on notice to the owners, authorize the sale of the fowl or animals for the penalty imposed by any ordinance, and the cost and expenses of the proceedings.

Last updated January 16, 2026 at 8:20 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2013–2018 · leading case: Lima v. Stepleton, 2013-Ohio-5655, 5 N.E.3d 721.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lima v. Stepleton, 2013-Ohio-5655, 5 N.E.3d 721. · cites it 2× “14, also did not amend R.C. 715.23 or 955.221(B)(3)—both affirming a municipal corporation’s ability to adopt and enforce dog-control ordinances—indicating that the General Assembly intended to maintain the status quo and allow continued local dog- control regulation.”
Mentor v. Spehar, 2018-Ohio-3441. · cites it 4× “{¶4} The first assignment of error reads: “The trial court erred by denying the motion to dismiss, and assuming that subject matter jurisdiction existed and that a criminal court is the proper venue for a municipal ordinance regulating farm animals and that a monetary fine,…”
Bedford v. Deal, 2013-Ohio-3240. “03 pursuant to R.C. 715.23, which governs the impounding of animals and states: Except as otherwise provided in section 955.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.