Last updateFri, 04 Jul 2014 5pm

Toledo, OH

Victory In Toledo!


Smith v. Toledo

The first chink in the armor of BSL in over a decade was created by Attorney Dan Haude when he took on the case of Hugh Smith. Haude, a pit bull owner and lover, took the case pro bono, and litigated the definintion contained in the Toledo ordinance of Pit Bull.  It was an incredible victory against great odds. He persuaded the trial court that the dogs Mr. Smith owned were Cane Corsos, and the fact that they could be fit into the definition of "pit bull" under the ordinance made the definition unconstitutional.  He also sucessfully argued that the City of Toledo did not have the power to require muzzling since it conflicted with state law.  The City appealed. In the interim, the City Commission passed a new dangerous dog law that was not breed specific.

The City then dropped the appeal.  The actual legal materials are below. Even if you don't read the actual Motions and Briefs, do read the hearing transcript.  What a beautiful job.


Order Finding Toledo Ordinance Unconstitutional


City of Toledo v. Smith - Transcript of argument for summary judgment.


City of Toledo v. Smith - Motion to Dismiss based on the definition of Pit Bull void for vagueness. Motion granted.

City of Toledo v. Smith - Motion to Dismiss based on muzzling requirement conflicting with State law. Motion granted.


City of Toledo v. Smith - Brief of Appellee arguing the trial court properly dismissed the case. 

Hide comment form Hide comment form

  2000 Characters left