No person, who is the owner or keeper of horses, mules, cattle, bison, sheep, goats, swine, llamas, alpacas, or poultry, shall permit them to run at large in the public road, highway, street, lane, or alley, or upon unenclosed land, or cause the animals to be herded, kept, or detained for the purpose of grazing on premises other than those owned or lawfully occupied by the owner or keeper of the animals.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Horsley v. Essman, 763 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001).
Horsley v. Essman, 763 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001). · cites it 15דR.C. 951.02; Drew v. Gross (1925), 112 Ohio St.”
State v. Schornak, 2015-Ohio-3383, 41 N.E.3d 168. · cites it 5דFacts and Course of Proceedings {¶ 2} On July 11, 2014, Schornak was charged with 15 counts of animals at large in violation of R.C. 951.02, all misdemeanors of the fourth degree.”
Bundy v. Five Rivers Metroparks, 787 N.E.2d 1281 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2003). · cites it 7דThe plaintiffs alleged that Five Rivers negligently, willfully, wantonly, and recklessly maintained its animals and failed to properly restrain and control its animals, permitting them to run at large on a public highway in violation of R.C. 951.02. {¶ 3} Five Rivers moved to…”
Burnett v. Rice, 529 N.E.2d 203 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 9דR.C. 951.02 provides as follows: “No person, who is the owner or keeper of horses, mules, cattle, sheep, *45 goats, swine, or geese, shall permit them to run at large in the public road, highway, street, lane, or alley, or upon unenclosed land, or cause such animals to be…”
City of Bexley v. Selcer, 716 N.E.2d 1220 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1998). · cites it 4דThat statute also provided, as does the ordinance in the instant case, that “[t]he running at large of any such animal in or upon any of the places mentioned in this section is prima-facie evidence that it is running at large in violation of this section.”
Rayner v. Lowe, 572 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1989). · cites it 8דR.C. 951.02 states: “No person, who is the owner or keeper of horses, mules, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, or geese, shall permit them to run at large in the public road, highway, street, lane, or alley, or upon unenclosed land, or cause such animals to be herded, kept, or…”
Reed v. Molnar, 423 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio 1981). · cites it 2ד10, as effective on the date of the accident, provided in part: “The owner or keeper of an animal described in section 951.02 of the Revised Code, who permits it to run at large in violation of such section, is liable for all damages caused by such animal upon the premises of…”
White v. Elias, 2012-Ohio-3814. · cites it 4ד{¶18} At the time the accident occurred,1 R.C. 951.02 provided that [n]o person, who is the owner or keeper of horses, mules, cattle, sheep, goats, swine, or geese, shall permit them to run at large in the public road, highway, street, lane, or alley, or upon unenclosed land.”
State v. Meyer, 2023-Ohio-1254. · cites it 8ד{¶ 7} Appellant was charged with Animals Running at Large on Public Roads in violation of R.C. 951.02, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.”
State v. Riegel, 2012-Ohio-4517. · cites it 13ד{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Lisa Riegel (“Riegel”), appeals the judgments of the Marysville Municipal Court finding her guilty in two separate cases for permitting animals (horses) to run at large in violation of R.C. 951.02. On appeal, Riegel contends that the trial court erred…”
State v. Norris, 2020-Ohio-764. · cites it 6ד{¶1} Appellant Ivan Norris appeals the terms of his community control imposed by the County Court of Noble County following his jury conviction for three counts of animals running at large, in violation of R.C. 951.02, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree; as well as his…”
Dungan v. Hart, 159 N.E.2d 903 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 8דUpon this assignment, two propositions are urged: (1) That the court failed to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur; and (2) that the court failed to hold that Section 951.02 of the Revised Code, upon the averments of the petition, made a prima facie case on behalf of the…”
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.