Legal Opinion

State ex rel. OTR v. City of Columbus

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1996No. 95-611PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides that “[p]rivate property shall ever be held inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare. * * * [Wjhere private property shall be taken for public use, a compensation therefor shall first be made in money * * * and such compensation shall be assessed by a jury, without deduction for benefits to any property of the owner.” Similarly, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

In order to establish a taking, a landowner must…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Smith v. Erie Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938
  2. State ex rel. Taylor v. WhiteheadOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  3. State ex rel. Noga v. MasheterOhio Supreme Court · 1975

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Charles W. Warren Ruth Warren v. City of Athens, OhioCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
  2. Symmes Township Board of Trustees v. SmythOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State ex rel. BSW Development Group v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State ex rel. Coles v. GranvilleOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Town of LudlowSupreme Court of Vermont · 2000

45 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