In the case of N. Ridgeville v. Zilka, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 23CA012047, 2024-Ohio-2468, Ohio’s Ninth District Court of Appeals addressed the ability of a property owner in an eminent domain action to recover attorney fees...more
Update - February 2024: We have been following the progress of House Bill (“HB”) 64 in Ohio’s 135th General Assembly (formerly HB 698 in the 134th General Assembly) (the “Bill”), which proposes numerous changes to Ohio’s...more
Update: We previously published the alert below regarding House Bill (“HB”) 698 in the 134th Ohio General Assembly, which proposed numerous changes to Ohio’s eminent domain statutes that would be favorable to property owners,...more
Under Ohio Revised Code 163.04, a condemning authority is required to make a good faith offer to purchase property it seeks to acquire at least 30 days before it may file an eminent domain lawsuit to take the property. If it...more
The U.S. Supreme Court often makes headlines with its decisions, but even in its inaction, the Court can have an impact on the law. Such was the case with Eychaner v. The City of Chicago, which the Court declined to hear last...more
On June 7, 2022, House Bill 698 was introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives. The Bill would amend Ohio’s eminent domain law, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 163, in numerous ways that are favorable to property owners and...more
Property owners won a significant victory in the recent case of Pakdel v. San Francisco, in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a restrictive view of the “finality requirement,” which generally requires a government...more
There has been a major development in the ongoing legal fight over the ability of the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District in Mahoning County to condemn private property for its bikeway project. ...more
In a boon to property owners, the U.S. Supreme Court recently expanded the definition of what constitutes a physical taking (one that takes possession of property away from its owner) by including what many practitioners...more
The U.S. Supreme Court shocked many observers with its recent decision in PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey by holding that sovereign immunity does not insulate State-owned land from being condemned by a private company in...more
After much debate, President Joe Biden signed into law the $1.2 trillion bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act last November. The Act provides for $550 billion in new federal spending in infrastructure.
The...more
By and large, the default for eminent domain cases is paid compensation before a property is taken, and after a court has reached a verdict about the value of that compensation. However, there is one common ‘exception’ to...more
I regularly present on eminent domain, and one of the most common questions that came up this past year during live or remote presentations had to do with necessity determinations made by a condemning authority. ...more
When an entity moves to ‘take’ land or property (via the power of eminent domain), all parties involved become entrenched in determinations of what constitutes adequate compensation.
This process is ultimately what a...more
About to enter eminent domain proceedings? Chances are your case falls into one of the three main ‘taking’ categories defined by your state’s constitution.
3 Basic ‘Takings’ Categories for Eminent Domain Cases in the...more
In the last five years, several new cases have come before Ohio’s Supreme Court related to eminent domain (ED) law, as well as the rulings, rights, and amendments surrounding Ohio’s ED process.
It can be a complex issue...more
A recurring theme in the area of eminent domain is so-called “stigma damages” caused by the construction of an improvement that may be thought to reduce the market value of a property. A common example is gas pipelines, which...more
Ohio courts have long held that a condemning authority fails to satisfy the good faith offer requirement if the offer is not based on an appraisal. See Media One v. Manor Park Apts Ltd., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2000-L-045, 2000...more
On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019), holding that a property owner can bring an action in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to...more
Are you a litigator who practices in multiple courts across Ohio? If so, you may not know it, but your life got measurably less stressful on July 1, 2019, when changes to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, the Ohio Rules of...more
For many years, a property owner seeking compensation from a state or local government for an uncompensated property taking was relegated to filing an action for inverse condemnation in state court. In Ohio, for example, that...more
7/26/2019
/ 42 U.S.C. §1983 ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Fifth Amendment ,
Inverse Condemnation ,
Just Compensation ,
Knick v Township of Scott Pennsylvania ,
Popular ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Property Owners ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
State Law Remedies ,
Takings Clause
If you own real estate or are contemplating a real estate purchase, give some thought to your property taxes. Specifically, give some thought to whether you might be able to reduce your property taxes.
Every parcel of real...more
As a general rule, injuries that are shared in common with the general public are not compensable under Ohio eminent domain law. Ohio’s 4th District Court of Appeals recently ruled that the question of whether an injury is...more