Legal Opinion
City of Cincinnati v. Dale
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 5, 1969No. 68-688PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, C. J.
In a case such as this, our Constitution (Section 19, Article I), requires that “* * * where private property shall be taken for public use, a compensation therefor shall first be made in money, or secured by a deposit of money * * #.”
Thus, after any such taking and until the time when “compensation therefor shall * * * be made in money” interest must be paid on the value of the property taken in order to fully compensate the one from whom the property is taken. Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. Preston (1963), 175 Ohio St 277, 194 N. E. 2d 139; Atlantic & Great Western Ry. Co. v. Koblentz (1871),…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bekos v. MasheterOhio Supreme Court · 1968
- State Ex Rel. Steubenville Ice Co. v. MerrellOhio Supreme Court · 1934
- State v. JonesIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
- In Re Appropriation of Easements for Highway Purposes Over Property of BertschOhio Court of Appeals · 1963
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cassady v. City of ColumbusOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
- City of Athens v. WarthmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1970
- City of Norwood v. CannavaOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Ohio Department of Natural Resources v. HughesOhio Court of Appeals · 2001