Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 955
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 955.03 (2026)

Dogs are personal property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
March 20, 2026
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 247 - 136th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Any dog that has been registered under sections 955.02 and 955.04 of the Revised Code and any dog not required to be registered under such sections shall be considered as personal property and have all the rights and privileges and be subject to like restraints as other livestock.

Last updated January 16, 2026 at 8:22 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Sokolovic v. Hamilton, 2011 Ohio 4638 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sokolovic v. Hamilton, 2011 Ohio 4638 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Specifically, R.C. 955.03 provides: Any dog which has been registered under sections 955.”
Oberschlake v. Veterinary Assocs. Animal Hosp., 785 N.E.2d 811 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Specifically, R.C. 955.03 states: {¶ 8} “Any dog which has been registered under sections 955.”
Dukuzumuremyi v. Martin, 2025 Ohio 508 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “; R.C. 955.03 (dogs “shall be considered as personal property”).”
Green v. Animal Prot. League of Mercer Cty., 2016 Ohio 2767 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See also R.C. 955.03. “R.C. 955.12, 955.16, and 955.”
Eltibi v. Kocsis, 2021 Ohio 2911 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “Kocsis had actual or constructive possession of the dog.”
State v. Wolfe, 2022 Ohio 2921 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Rather, he maintains the order should be vacated because Echo is personal property as defined in R.C. 955.03. By designating Echo as property, Wolfe argues Echo is an instrumentality subject to forfeiture per R.”
Perelman v. Meade, 2021 Ohio 4247 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “R.C. 955.03; Sokolovic v. Hamilton, 8th Dist.”
Davison v. Parker, 2014 Ohio 3277 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “R.C. 955.03.” The trial court stated, “[a]ny decision to apply a measure of damages beyond those applicable to personal property would contradict the legislature’s intention that dogs be treated as personal property.”
Rego v. Madalinski, 2016 Ohio 7339 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “R.C. 955.03 provides: Any dog which has been registered under sections 955.”
Williams v. Toy, 2023 Ohio 1844 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “2022 CA 00055 10 her, citing R.C. 955.03 (dogs are personalty) and Oberschlake v.”
State v. Withers, 2026 Ohio 2290 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 4× “) According to R.C. 955.03, a dog is personal property, not a person.”
Pinyerd v. Glidden (N.D. Ohio 2022). · cites it 2× “Dogs are personal property under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 955.03 . However, that does not lead Defendant to the conclusion Defendant would prefer the Court to reach.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.