Ogle v. Hocking Cty.
2014 Ohio 5422
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Melanie and Charles Ogle sued Hocking County and others claiming a civil conspiracy to trespass on their rural property related to Columbia Gas and Ohio Power construction and associated special‑duty sheriff security.
- Columbia Gas held an Oil, Gas & Storage Lease on the land, obtained FERC and ODNR approvals, and built an access road, well site, and pipelines in late‑2009; Ohio Power installed power lines under an appropriated easement in summer 2009.
- The Hocking County Sheriff’s Office provided off‑duty/special‑duty officers (in uniform, in marked cruisers) for security and traffic control for the utilities; officers testified they stayed on the graveled access road or township road and rarely left cruisers.
- The Ogles sent a certified “Notice to Leave” (Nov. 27, 2009) ordering sheriffs and Off Duty Services off the property; officers remained until project completion in December 2009.
- On Nov. 5, 2009 the Ogles transferred title to Ogleshill Farm, LLC; trial court found the Ogles lacked standing to pursue claims arising after that date.
- Following a bench trial on the remanded conspiracy (to trespass) count, the trial court dismissed the claim with prejudice, concluding the utilities and officers had privilege/authority to be on the property and that sheriff North had immunity; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing after Nov. 5, 2009 transfer | Ogles may pursue conspiracy claims for events after transfer | Ogles transferred title Nov. 5, 2009; post‑transfer claims belong to LLC, not them | Transfer was proven; Ogles lacked standing for post‑Nov.5 claims; issue overruled for Ogles |
| Individual vs official capacity of Sheriff North | Claim remained against North individually | Parties treated North as sued in official capacity; plaintiffs failed to object at trial | Plaintiffs acquiesced; any error waived and not plain error; overruled |
| Proper trespass definition / use of R.C. 2911.21(A)(3),(4) | Trial should have considered these criminal trespass subsections | Court applied trespass definition proposed by plaintiffs; officers had privilege to be on property | Plaintiff invited the definition used; subsections not raised at trial; omission harmless; overruled |
| Conspiracy / trespass merits & immunity | Evidence shows malicious combination and officers exceeded authorized areas; North not immune | Utilities had lawful authority (lease, FERC, ODNR, appropriation easement); officers acted as permitted special‑duty agents; North sought prosecutor advice; no malice shown; immunity applies | Trial court’s credibility findings supported by competent evidence; no underlying tort (no actionable trespass); conspiracy claim dismissed; immunity ruling not addressed substantively and assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 972 N.E.2d 517 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest‑weight sufficiency of evidence)
- Shemo v. Mayfield Heights, 722 N.E.2d 1018 (1999) (deference to trial court findings of fact)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co., 376 N.E.2d 578 (1978) (trial court findings will be upheld if some competent, credible evidence supports them)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997) (plain‑error doctrine in civil context requires serious effect on fairness of proceedings)
- Cook v. Kudlacz, 974 N.E.2d 706 (2012) (underlying tort required for civil conspiracy claim)
- DiPasquale v. Costas, 926 N.E.2d 682 (2010) (elements of civil trespass)