Legal Opinion

Duncan v. City of Middlefield, 2005-L-140 (4-18-2008)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 18, 2008No. 2005-L-140PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

{¶ 1} This action in mandamus is presently before this court for final disposition of respondents' motion for summary judgment as to each aspect of relator's remaining claim for relief. Under that single claim, relator essentially alleged that respondents had engaged in a series of twelve acts which ultimately resulted in the temporary regulatory taking of his real property. As the primary grounds for the instant motion, respondents maintain that relator will never be able to satisfy the elements for a writ of mandamus because the undisputed evidence establishes that any delays in…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  3. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  5. Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Maher v. AkronOhio Court of Appeals · 2018
  2. State Ex Rel. Gilmour Realty, Inc. v. City of Mayfield HeightsOhio Court of Appeals · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API