Legal Opinion

Blackman v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1942No. 28850PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.

Appellants base their rights of recovery solely on the ground “that whenever the sovereignty, or any of its instrumentalities, in the performance of governmental functions, appropriates private property for public use, that sovereignty or instrumentality must make compensation therefor,” citing Section 19, Article I of the Constitution of Ohio.

“Eminent domain” is the power of the state, or an agency designated by the state, to take private property for a necessary public use, and its exercise depends upon the existence of a statute which either by express words or plain implication authorizes…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hooe v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Customer Co. v. City of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  2. Sowers v. SchaefferOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Sullivant v. City of Oklahoma CitySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1997
  4. Kelley v. Story County SheriffSupreme Court of Iowa · 2000
  5. Elkins-Swyers Office Equipment Co. v. County of MoniteauSupreme Court of Missouri · 1948

6 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