Nau v. Martins Ferry, 2014 Ohio 2466

Naus own a home at 843 Hanover Street, Martins Ferry, purchased in 1995; a subsiding ground revealed an underground culvert under the home.
City attempted repairs, then disclaimed responsibility for the culvert, and the home's damage continued.
Naus filed a 2012 Belmont County Common Pleas action with four counts (negligence, nuisance, declaratory judgment) and alternative mandamus for statutory appropriation to address a taking.
Naus attached materials to prove city ownership/responsibility for the culvert (1909 Municipal Journal/Engineer Index, 2010 city report, and council minutes showing notice and repair efforts).
Trial court, on July 25, 2013, separated the taking claim for statutory appropriation proceedings before a different judge and deferred other claims pending those proceedings; summary judgment on immunity and other claims was held in abeyance.
Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding the order was not a final, appealable order because the immunity issue had not been denied and the appropriation proceedings had not commenced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the July 25, 2013 order final and appealable?	Naus contend the order denied the city the immunity benefit.	City argues the order preserves immunity issues and is appealable as a final order.	No; the order is not final or appealable.
Does separating the taking claim into appropriation proceedings affect immunity or appealability?	Separation controls immunity analysis and warrants immediate appeal.	Separation does not render the order final; appropriation proceedings not yet commenced.	No final, appealable order; appeal dismissed.

Mortensen v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2008-Ohio-1728 (12th Dist. No. CA2008-10-255) (sovereign immunity does not apply to unlawful takings claim)
Riscatti v. Prime Properties Ltd. Partnership, 2012-Ohio-2921 (8th Dist. Nos. 97270, 97274) (order denying immunity in abeyance is distinguished; not controlling here)