Legal Opinion

State Ex Rel. Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 30, 2006No. C-050774PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Mark P. Painter, Judge.

{¶ 1} When the government takes property, it must pay compensation. And taking isn’t limited to physical confiscation — it can also be by impairing the property’s value by, as here, cutting off access.

{¶ 2} In this case, the city of Cincinnati has denied access to a piece of property, leaving it landlocked — and not just figuratively, but literally: the only access would be by boat. Cincinnati not being Waterworld, boat access is not sufficient. Though the city makes a series of bizarre arguments attempting to support its position, its legal position is as wet as the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Dresher v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State ex rel. Duncan v. City of Mentor City CouncilOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State ex rel. Shemo v. City of Mayfield HeightsOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Smith v. Erie Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1938

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Hilltop Basic Resources, Inc. v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Ben J. v. City of SalinaSupreme Court of Kansas · 2010
  3. State Ex Rel. Thieken v. ProctorOhio Court of Appeals · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API