Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 955
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11 (2026)

Transfer of ownership

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 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
 

(A) Upon the transfer of ownership of any dog, the seller of the dog shall give the buyer a transfer of ownership certificate that shall be signed by the seller. The certificate shall contain the registration number of the dog, the name of the seller, and a brief description of the dog. Blank forms of the certificate may be obtained from the county auditor. A transfer of ownership shall be recorded by the auditor upon presentation of a transfer of ownership certificate that is signed by the former owner of a dog and that is accompanied by a fee of five dollars.

(B) Except as provided in division (C) of this section, prior to the transfer of ownership or possession of a dog, upon the buyer's or other transferee's request, the seller or other transferor of the dog shall give to the person a written notice relative to the behavior and propensities of the dog.

(C) Within ten days after the transfer of ownership or possession of any dog, if the seller or other transferor of the dog has knowledge that the dog is a dangerous dog or vicious dog, the seller or other transferor shall give to the buyer or other transferee, the board of health for the district in which the buyer or other transferee resides, and the dog warden of the county in which the buyer or other transferee resides, a completed copy of a written form on which the seller shall furnish the following information:

(1) The name and address of the buyer or other transferee of the dog;

(2) The age, sex, color, breed, and current registration number of the dog.

In addition, the seller shall answer the following questions, which shall be specifically stated on the form as follows:

"Has the dog ever chased or attempted to attack or bite a person? If yes, describe the incident(s) in which the behavior occurred."

"Has the dog ever bitten a person? If yes, describe the incident(s) in which the behavior occurred."

"Has the dog ever seriously injured or killed a person? If yes, describe the incident(s) in which the behavior occurred."

"Has the dog previously been designated a nuisance, dangerous, or vicious dog? If yes, indicate the designation that was assigned, the date of designation, and in which county or city the designation was made."

The seller or other transferor shall obtain the signature of the buyer or other transferee after a statement on the form that the buyer or other transferee understands that such person is acquiring a dangerous or vicious dog.

The dog warden of the county in which the seller resides shall furnish the form to the seller at no cost.

(D)(1) No seller or other transferor of a dog shall fail to comply with the requirements of division (A) of this section. A violation of this division is a strict liability offense and section 2901.20 of the Revised Code does not apply.

(2) No seller or other transferor of a dog shall fail to comply with the requirements of division (B) or (C) of this section. A violation of this division is a strict liability offense and section 2901.20 of the Revised Code does not apply.

(E)(1) Whoever violates division (D)(1) of this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor.

(2) Whoever violates division (D)(2) of this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor on a first offense and of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree on each subsequent offense.

(F) Division (C) of this section does not apply to an animal shelter for dogs with respect to a dog concerning which it transferred ownership or possession to another person if both of the following apply:

(1) The animal shelter for dogs did not have knowledge and could not have reasonably ascertained that the dog is a dangerous or vicious dog.

(2) Before the transfer of the dog, the animal shelter for dogs asked the following questions of the dog's previous owner, keeper, or harborer, if such person is known and if the dog was not impounded under section 959.132 of the Revised Code:

(a) "Has the dog ever chased or attempted to attack or bite a person? If yes, describe the incident(s) in which the behavior occurred."

(b) "Has the dog ever bitten a person? If yes, describe the incident(s) in which the behavior occurred."

(c) "Has the dog ever seriously injured or killed a person? If yes, describe the incident(s) in which the behavior occurred."

(d) "Has the dog previously been designated a nuisance, dangerous, or vicious dog? If yes, indicate the designation that was assigned, the date of designation, and in which county or city the designation was made."

Last updated February 3, 2026 at 5:15 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 23× “{¶ 1} Appellant, the city of Toledo, appeals from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Lucas County that held R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.”
State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 12× “22 provides: {¶ b} “(A) As used in this section, ‘dangerous dog’ and ‘vicious dog’ have the same meanings as in section 955.11 of the Revised Code. {¶ c} “* * * * {¶ d} “(D) Except when a dangerous or vicious dog is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of…”
State v. Anderson, 566 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 11× “In order to prove such an assertion, the challenging party must show that the statute is vague “not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is…”
City of Youngstown v. Traylor, 2009-Ohio-4184, 914 N.E.2d 1026. · cites it 12× “11, or dogs commonly known as pit bulls or pit bull mixed breeds, to one in each household, and the Revised Code required an owner of a pit bull to obtain liability insurance for damages, injuries, or death that might be caused by the dog.”
Pflaum v. Summit Cnty. Animal Control, 2017-Ohio-4166, 92 N.E.3d 132. · cites it 8× “{¶ 8} After the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision concluding that Edwin could not be classified as a dangerous dog pursuant to R.C. 955.11. The magistrate stressed that pursuant to R.”
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-5159, 150 N.E.3d 58. · cites it 21× “Additionally, the chapter defines specific legal terms, such as “nuisance dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “vicious dog,” see R.C. 955.11, and outlines penalties for noncompliance with its laws, see R.”
Henry Cty. Dog Warden v. Henry Cty. Humane Soc., 2016-Ohio-7541, 64 N.E.3d 1076. · cites it 7× “Relevant Law {¶9} Section 955.11(A)(1) of the Revised Code defines a “dangerous dog” as follows: (a) “Dangerous dog” means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to division (A)(1)(b) of this section, has done any of the following: (i) Caused injury, other than killing or…”
Dukuzumuremyi v. Martin, 2025-Ohio-508, 265 N.E.3d 633. · cites it 10× “2024-L-047 Candice argued that the document did not meet the requirements to establish valid dog ownership pursuant to R.C. 955.11(B). {¶16} On April 25, 2024, the parties appeared for the bench trial.”
Eltibi v. Kocsis, 2021-Ohio-2911. · cites it 7× “{¶16} Further, R.C. 955.11(B) effectuates the transfer of ownership of dogs, which states, in relevant part: [u]pon the transfer of ownership of any dog, the seller of the dog shall give the buyer a transfer of ownership certificate that shall be signed by the seller.”
State v. Robinson, 541 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1989). · cites it 7× “15 (the animal fights statute) unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it proscribed an individual’s presence at a cockfight scene, regardless of whether a fight was in progress, and penalized the constitutional right of association.”
State v. Jones, 2018-Ohio-565, 95 N.E.3d 440. · cites it 6× “{¶ 8} R.C. 955.11 defines a "dangerous dog" as "a dog that, without provocation * * * has done any of the following: (i) Caused injury, other than killing or serious injury, to any person; (ii) Killed another dog; (iii) Been the subject of a third or subsequent violation of…”
Lima v. Stepleton, 2013-Ohio-5655, 5 N.E.3d 721. · cites it 9× “Former R.C. 955.11 indicated that R.C. Chapter 955’s provisions applied to a dog that “[b]elongs to a breed that is commonly known as pit bull dog.”
Show all 55 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(1): 1 case
Licking Cty. Dog Warden v. Sendykar, 2019-Ohio-5187.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(1)(A)(a)(i): 1 case
Fairfield Cty. Dog Warden v. Seifert, 2022-Ohio-2900.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(1)(a)(i): 1 case
Coykendall v. Lucas Cty. Dog Warden, 2018-Ohio-2976.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(6)(a)(iii): 1 case
Girard Zoning Dept. v. Wolfe, 2023-Ohio-3301, 224 N.E.3d 708.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A): 7 cases
State v. Anderson, 566 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 1991). “In order to prove such an assertion, the challenging party must show that the statute is vague “not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is…”
Licking Cty. Dog Warden v. Sendykar, 2019-Ohio-5187.
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-5159, 150 N.E.3d 58. “Additionally, the chapter defines specific legal terms, such as “nuisance dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “vicious dog,” see R.C. 955.11, and outlines penalties for noncompliance with its laws, see R.”
Denman v. Carroll Cty. Dog Warden, 2022-Ohio-2081.
Schneider v. Kumpf, 2016-Ohio-5161, 58 N.E.3d 1220.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(1): 10 cases
Henry Cty. Dog Warden v. Henry Cty. Humane Soc., 2016-Ohio-7541, 64 N.E.3d 1076. “Relevant Law {¶9} Section 955.11(A)(1) of the Revised Code defines a “dangerous dog” as follows: (a) “Dangerous dog” means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to division (A)(1)(b) of this section, has done any of the following: (i) Caused injury, other than killing or…”
Lima v. Stepleton, 2013-Ohio-5655, 5 N.E.3d 721. “Former R.C. 955.11 indicated that R.C. Chapter 955’s provisions applied to a dog that “[b]elongs to a breed that is commonly known as pit bull dog.”
Fairfield Cty. Dog Warden v. Seifert, 2022-Ohio-2900.
Girard Zoning Dept. v. Wolfe, 2023-Ohio-3301, 224 N.E.3d 708.
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-5159, 150 N.E.3d 58. “Additionally, the chapter defines specific legal terms, such as “nuisance dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “vicious dog,” see R.C. 955.11, and outlines penalties for noncompliance with its laws, see R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(1)(a): 26 cases
State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004). “22 provides: {¶ b} “(A) As used in this section, ‘dangerous dog’ and ‘vicious dog’ have the same meanings as in section 955.11 of the Revised Code. {¶ c} “* * * * {¶ d} “(D) Except when a dangerous or vicious dog is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of…”
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-5159, 150 N.E.3d 58. “Additionally, the chapter defines specific legal terms, such as “nuisance dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “vicious dog,” see R.C. 955.11, and outlines penalties for noncompliance with its laws, see R.”
Henry Cty. Dog Warden v. Henry Cty. Humane Soc., 2016-Ohio-7541, 64 N.E.3d 1076. “Relevant Law {¶9} Section 955.11(A)(1) of the Revised Code defines a “dangerous dog” as follows: (a) “Dangerous dog” means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to division (A)(1)(b) of this section, has done any of the following: (i) Caused injury, other than killing or…”
Pflaum v. Summit Cnty. Animal Control, 2017-Ohio-4166, 92 N.E.3d 132. “{¶ 8} After the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision concluding that Edwin could not be classified as a dangerous dog pursuant to R.C. 955.11. The magistrate stressed that pursuant to R.”
City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007). “{¶ 1} Appellant, the city of Toledo, appeals from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Lucas County that held R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(1)(a)(i): 5 cases
Pflaum v. Summit Cnty. Animal Control, 2017-Ohio-4166, 92 N.E.3d 132. “{¶ 8} After the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision concluding that Edwin could not be classified as a dangerous dog pursuant to R.C. 955.11. The magistrate stressed that pursuant to R.”
Hansen v. Tuscarawas Cty., 2019-Ohio-4494.
Spangler v. Stark Cty. Dog Warden, 2013-Ohio-4774.
Licking Cty. Dog Warden v. Sendykar, 2019-Ohio-5187.
Tipton v. Butler Cty. Dog Warden, 2025-Ohio-5361.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(1)(a)(ii): 3 cases
Spurrier v. Lake Cty. Dog Warden, 2018-Ohio-4663.
Mullins v. City of St. Marys, 2017-Ohio-8934, 91 N.E.3d 786.
State v. Rivera, 2024-Ohio-4530.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(1)(a)(iii): 2 cases
State v. Boychi, 2023-Ohio-3134.
Deckard v. Greene Cty. Animal Control, 2016-Ohio-7981.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(1)(b): 2 cases
Lima v. Stepleton, 2013-Ohio-5655, 5 N.E.3d 721. “Former R.C. 955.11 indicated that R.C. Chapter 955’s provisions applied to a dog that “[b]elongs to a breed that is commonly known as pit bull dog.”
Licking Cty. Dog Warden v. Sendykar, 2019-Ohio-5187.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(1)(iii): 1 case
State v. Boychi, 2023-Ohio-3134.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(2): 1 case
Cappara v. Avon Lake, 2017-Ohio-8262.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(2)(b): 1 case
Mullins v. City of St. Marys, 2017-Ohio-8934, 91 N.E.3d 786.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(3): 1 case
Cappara v. Avon Lake, 2017-Ohio-8262.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(3)(a): 3 cases
State v. Arnold, 2017-Ohio-326.
Cappara v. Avon Lake, 2017-Ohio-8262.
State v. Boychi, 2023-Ohio-3134.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(4): 2 cases
Schneider v. Kumpf, 2016-Ohio-5161, 58 N.E.3d 1220.
State v. Murphy, 860 N.E.2d 1068 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2006).
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(4)(a): 7 cases
State v. Cowan, 814 N.E.2d 846 (Ohio 2004). “22 provides: {¶ b} “(A) As used in this section, ‘dangerous dog’ and ‘vicious dog’ have the same meanings as in section 955.11 of the Revised Code. {¶ c} “* * * * {¶ d} “(D) Except when a dangerous or vicious dog is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of…”
City of Youngstown v. Traylor, 2009-Ohio-4184, 914 N.E.2d 1026. “11, or dogs commonly known as pit bulls or pit bull mixed breeds, to one in each household, and the Revised Code required an owner of a pit bull to obtain liability insurance for damages, injuries, or death that might be caused by the dog.”
City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007). “{¶ 1} Appellant, the city of Toledo, appeals from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Lucas County that held R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.”
Flint v. Holbrook, 608 N.E.2d 809 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1992).
State v. Ferguson, 603 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1991).
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(4)(a)(i): 2 cases
State v. Ferguson, 603 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1991).
State v. Mallis, 2011-Ohio-4752, 964 N.E.2d 1096.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(4)(a)(ii): 1 case
State v. Mallis, 2011-Ohio-4752, 964 N.E.2d 1096.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii): 9 cases
State v. Anderson, 566 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 1991). “In order to prove such an assertion, the challenging party must show that the statute is vague “not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is…”
City of Toledo v. Tellings, 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2007). “{¶ 1} Appellant, the city of Toledo, appeals from the judgment of the Court of Appeals of Lucas County that held R.C. 955.11 and 955.22 and Toledo Municipal Code 505.”
State v. Ferguson, 566 N.E.2d 1230 (Ohio 1991).
City of Youngstown v. Traylor, 2009-Ohio-4184, 914 N.E.2d 1026. “11, or dogs commonly known as pit bulls or pit bull mixed breeds, to one in each household, and the Revised Code required an owner of a pit bull to obtain liability insurance for damages, injuries, or death that might be caused by the dog.”
State v. Robinson, 541 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1989). “15 (the animal fights statute) unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it proscribed an individual’s presence at a cockfight scene, regardless of whether a fight was in progress, and penalized the constitutional right of association.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(4)(iii): 1 case
Matthews v. Amberwood Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, Inc., 719 A.2d 119 (Md. 1998).
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(5): 2 cases
Dillon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-942, 211 N.E.3d 746.
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-5159, 150 N.E.3d 58. “Additionally, the chapter defines specific legal terms, such as “nuisance dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “vicious dog,” see R.C. 955.11, and outlines penalties for noncompliance with its laws, see R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(6): 3 cases
Russ v. Reynoldsburg, 2017-Ohio-1471, 81 N.E.3d 493.
Dillon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-942, 211 N.E.3d 746.
State v. Withers, 2026-Ohio-2290.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(6)(a): 6 cases
Dillon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-942, 211 N.E.3d 746.
State v. Jones (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-5159, 150 N.E.3d 58. “Additionally, the chapter defines specific legal terms, such as “nuisance dog,” “dangerous dog,” and “vicious dog,” see R.C. 955.11, and outlines penalties for noncompliance with its laws, see R.”
State v. Arnold, 2017-Ohio-326.
Russ v. Reynoldsburg, 2017-Ohio-1471, 81 N.E.3d 493.
Licking Cty. Dog Warden v. Sendykar, 2019-Ohio-5187.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(6)(a)(iii): 1 case
Russ v. Reynoldsburg, 2017-Ohio-1471, 81 N.E.3d 493.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(6)(b): 2 cases
Dillon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2023-Ohio-942, 211 N.E.3d 746.
Mullins v. City of St. Marys, 2017-Ohio-8934, 91 N.E.3d 786.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(6)(b)(ii): 1 case
Licking Cty. Dog Warden v. Sendykar, 2019-Ohio-5187.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(A)(7): 10 cases
Pflaum v. Summit Cnty. Animal Control, 2017-Ohio-4166, 92 N.E.3d 132. “{¶ 8} After the hearing, the magistrate issued a decision concluding that Edwin could not be classified as a dangerous dog pursuant to R.C. 955.11. The magistrate stressed that pursuant to R.”
Henry Cty. Dog Warden v. Henry Cty. Humane Soc., 2016-Ohio-7541, 64 N.E.3d 1076. “Relevant Law {¶9} Section 955.11(A)(1) of the Revised Code defines a “dangerous dog” as follows: (a) “Dangerous dog” means a dog that, without provocation, and subject to division (A)(1)(b) of this section, has done any of the following: (i) Caused injury, other than killing or…”
Spurrier v. Lake Cty. Dog Warden, 2018-Ohio-4663.
Hansen v. Tuscarawas Cty., 2019-Ohio-4494.
Glass v. Franklin Cty. Dept. of Animal Care & Control, 2023-Ohio-4804, 232 N.E.3d 1001.
Ohio Rev. Code § 955.11(B): 4 cases
Dukuzumuremyi v. Martin, 2025-Ohio-508, 265 N.E.3d 633. “2024-L-047 Candice argued that the document did not meet the requirements to establish valid dog ownership pursuant to R.C. 955.11(B). {¶16} On April 25, 2024, the parties appeared for the bench trial.”
Eltibi v. Kocsis, 2021-Ohio-2911. “{¶16} Further, R.C. 955.11(B) effectuates the transfer of ownership of dogs, which states, in relevant part: [u]pon the transfer of ownership of any dog, the seller of the dog shall give the buyer a transfer of ownership certificate that shall be signed by the seller.”
Lockhart v. Anick, 2025-Ohio-4496, 273 N.E.3d 263.
Lucas Cty. Pit Crew v. Fulton Cty. Dog Warden, 2016-Ohio-8526, 79 N.E.3d 1244.
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.