Moore v. City of Middletown, 133 Ohio St. 3d 55

Moores own property in Monroe adjacent to Middletown’s Martin-Bake property, which Middletown rezoned to general industrial (1-2) via Ordinances 02008-63 and 02008-64, including an emergency declaration to spur development and job growth.
Plaintiffs allege Middletown’s rezoning is unconstitutional, arbitrary, and not substantially related to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare; they claim due process, equal protection, and a regulatory taking, seeking declaratory relief and mandamus.
Trial court dismissed for lack of standing and failure to state a claim; the court of appeals affirmed on standing grounds, treating both declaratory-judgment and mandamus claims together.
The Ohio Supreme Court previously recognized Clifton’s limits on mandamus standing for taking claims outside a municipality’s jurisdiction and now addresses whether nonresident adjacent property owners may pursue other constitutional claims.
The court holds: (a) mandamus standing is unavailable for property outside the municipality’s limits; (b) nonresident adjacent property owners may have standing to seek declaratory relief on due process and equal protection challenges to zoning; (c) remand for discovery to develop those claims.”,

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moore(s) have standing to seek mandamus for appropriation outside Middletown	Moores rely on Clifton to show standing.	Middletown argues no authority to appropriate beyond its limits; standing is barred.	No standing for mandamus.
Whether nonresident adjacent property owners have standing to challenge zoning through declaratory judgment	Moores claim due process and equal protection violations from Middletown’s rezoning.	Clifton forecloses standing for takings outside jurisdiction; unclear on other constitutional claims.	Yes, standing to pursue declaratory-judgment claims.
Whether declaratory judgment is a proper vehicle to challenge zoning as applied to another municipality's action	R.C. 2721.02/2721.03 allow declaratory relief; claims are justiciable and ripe.	Procedural and standing hurdles apply; relief must be via other means.	Declaratory judgment is appropriate.
Whether the case should be remanded for discovery on due process/equal protection claims	Facts to support theories exist; discovery needed.	Judgment on standing should dispose; discovery may be unnecessary.	Remand for discovery on these claims.

Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St.3d 287 (2012-Ohio-780) (mandamus standing limits for regulation outside municipal limits; taking context)
Midwest Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Deerfield Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 91 Ohio St.3d 174 (2001) (standing of aggrieved adjacent property owner to challenge zoning appeal)
Goldberg Cos., Inc. v. Richmond Hts. City Council, 81 Ohio St.3d 207 (1998) (zoning challenges may be found unconstitutional if not related to public welfare)