Legal Opinion

Houck v. Board of Park Commissioners

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 2007No. 2006-1262PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.

I. Introduction

{¶ 1} The issue before this court is whether real property owned by a park district established under R.C. Chapter 1545 can be acquired by adverse possession. Because the underlying legal principles of adverse possession do not apply to park districts, we answer that question in the negative and affirm the court of appeals.

II. Facts and Procedure

{¶ 2} Appellants, Richard Houck and others,1 own property near a corridor of property that was once owned by a railroad and accommodated railroad tracks. Sometime prior to 1979, the railroad ceased its operations and removed the track,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Grace v. KochOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Schenkolewski v. Cleveland Metroparks SystemOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Marrek v. Cleveland Metroparks Board of CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  5. City of Cincinnati v. EvansOhio Supreme Court · 1855

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Evanich v. BridgeOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Hedrick v. SzepOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
  3. Hardert v. NeumannOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. New 52 Project, Inc. v. Proctor, Ohio Department of TransportationOhio Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Wagoner v. ObertOhio Court of Appeals · 2008

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API