Legal Opinion
Eastland Woods v. City of Tallmadge
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided January 5, 1983No. 81-1886PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Per curiam
In Ohio, a property owner, having other means of access to his property, may not enjoin the vacation of a public way, or receive damages for its closing, unless his property abuts the vacated street. As this court stated in Kinnear Mfg. Co. v. Beatty (1901), 65 Ohio St. 264, 282-83:
“* * * The decisions in this state have clearly established that an abutting lot owner has such an interest in the portion of the street on which he abuts, that the closing of it * * * is a taking of private property for a public use, and cannot be done without compensation. * * * But where the party complaining is…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Albes v. Southern Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Nichols v. Inhabitants of RichmondMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc. v. GillespieOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- London v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1980
- Bowles v. AntonettiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- City of Cleveland v. City of Shaker HeightsOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Fitzpatrick v. PalmerOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
- Nusekabel v. Cincinnati Public School Employees Credit Union, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1997
- Ohio Multi-Use Trails Ass'n v. Vinton County CommissionersOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
- Howell Properties, Inc. v. Twp. of BrickNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.