Legal Opinion
City of Norwood v. Cannava
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided September 13, 1989No. 88-908PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the date of taking for computation of interest pursuant to R.C. 163.17 is the date the appropriating authority first takes action which depreciates the value of the property or the date when the appropriating authority takes actual physical possession of the property.
R.C. 163.17 provides in pertinent part:
“Where the agency has the right to take possession of the property before the verdict upon payment into court of a deposit, and a portion of said deposit may be withdrawn immediately by the owner, the amount of the verdict which exceeds the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Bauman v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Shoemaker v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- United States v. Thayer-West Point Hotel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. PenrodOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Village of Gates Mills v. JonesOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
- Johnson v. City of MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2002