Ohio Supreme Court Decision Explains Eminent Domain Procedures

Aug 08, 2023

By Peggy Kirk Hall

When a landowner legally challenges an agency’s use of eminent domain to appropriate property, Ohio law requires a trial court to hold a hearing to determine the agency’s right to make the appropriation, according to a recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court held that an appeal to a higher court is not permissible until the trial court holds such a hearing and rules on the issues raised in the hearing. For landowner Diane Less, the ruling means the trial court–the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas–must hold a hearing to determine whether Mill Creek MetroParks had the right to make the appropriation of her land and whether that appropriation is necessary.

The case is one of several lawsuits and long-running controversies over Mill Creek MetroPark’s use of eminent domain to appropriate land for a bike path. The Mahoning County disputes are one reason behind a current legislative proposal to revise Ohio’s eminent domain laws, which includes a prohibition against the use of eminent domain for recreational trails. The legislation is at a standstill, however, with many opponents lining up against the recreational trails and other provisions of the bill.

Basis for the decision

The current Mill Creek MetroParks v. Less case made its way to the Ohio Supreme Court after the Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed the Mahoning County court’s summary judgment decision that MetroParks was authorized to use eminent domain to take Less’ land. MetroParks appealed that decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. But rather than addressing the issue of authority to take the land, the high court focused on the procedures outlined in Chapter 163 of the Ohio Revised Code. The statutes “provide a uniform eminent domain procedure for all appropriations sought by public and private agencies,” including procedures for when a property owner contests an appropriation. The Court reviewed the statutory requirements in ORC 163.09, which require a trial court to hold a hearing when:

A property owner files an answer to a petition for eminent domain that specifically denies the right to make the appropriation or the necessity for the appropriation,
The answer alleges sufficient facts in support of the denial, and
The appropriation is not sought in a time of war or other public exigency or not for the purpose of making or repairing roads.

When MetroParks filed the eminent domain action against Less, she did file an answer that denied the Park District’s right to make the appropriation and the necessity for the appropriation. Less also filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in her favor and dismiss the case because there were no genuine issues of material fact in the case. The trial court denied her motion, however, and Less filed an appeal of that denial to the Seventh District Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court points out that the appeal should not have occurred, however, because the statutory procedures required the trial court to hold a hearing after it denied the summary judgment motion by Less. Nevertheless, the Seventh District ruled on the appeal, reaching a decision that agreed with Less’ argument that the Park District did not have authority to take her land.

The Supreme Court accepted the case for review, but its purpose was not to rule on the issue of whether there was authority for the use of eminent domain. Instead, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear MetroPark’s appeal of the Seventh District’s decision, and that the Seventh District Appeals Court did not have jurisdiction to review the decision of the trial court. Because the trial court had failed to follow the statutory procedures for a hearing and decision on the authority and necessity of the appropriation, there was no “final appealable order” that either party could appeal to a higher court.

What happens next?

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Seventh District Court of Appeals and sent the case back down to the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. The county court must now hold a hearing to review the landowner’s arguments on the authority and necessity for the park’s appropriation. The court’s decision after that hearing will be an order that either party may choose to appeal to the Seventh District. The best answer to the question of what happens next, most likely, is that case will continue to roll on for quite some time.

Source : osu.edu

Video: Evolution of Beef Cattle Farming

The Clear Conversations podcast took to the road for a special episode recorded in Nashville during CattleCon, bringing listeners straight into the heart of the cattle industry. Host Tracy Sellers welcomed rancher Steve Wooten of Beatty Canyon Ranch in Colorado for a wide-ranging discussion that blended family history and sustainability, particularly as it relates to the future of beef production.

Sustainability emerged as a central theme of the conversation, a word that Wooten acknowledges can mean very different things depending on who you ask. For him, sustainability starts with the soil. Healthy soil produces healthy grass, which supports efficient cattle capable of producing year after year with minimal external inputs. It’s an approach that equally considers vegetation, animal efficiency, and long-term profitability.

That philosophy aligned naturally with Wooten’s involvement in the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, where he served as a representative for the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association. The roundtable brings together the entire beef supply chain—from producers to retailers—along with universities, NGOs, and allied industries. Its goal is not regulation, Wooten emphasized, but collaboration, shared learning, and continuous improvement.