Schlegel v. Sweeney, 2022 Ohio 3841

In 2019 the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District filed an appropriation action in Mahoning County to take Edward Schlegel’s property to extend a bike trail.
While the case was pending, the General Assembly enacted Am.Sub.H.B. No. 110, § 715.05(B), barring park districts in counties with populations between 220,000 and 240,000 (including Mahoning County) from appropriating property for recreational trails.
Schlegel moved to dismiss in the common pleas court; the court denied the motion, concluding the statute was not retroactive.
Schlegel then sought a writ of prohibition from the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing the new law divested the common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court considered whether Schlegel lacked an adequate remedy at law and whether the statute patently and unambiguously removed the common pleas court’s jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Schlegel)	Defendant's Argument (Judge/Respondents)	Held
Whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate or Schlegel has an adequate remedy at law	The denial of dismissal leaves no adequate remedy because appropriation proceedings are bifurcated and he lost the ability to raise the statutory bar on the initial appeal	Schlegel can appeal after final judgment on both the taking and compensation, which is an adequate remedy	Denied: Schlegel has an adequate remedy by appeal following final judgment
Whether the post-filing statute patently and unambiguously divested the common pleas court of subject-matter jurisdiction	The statute eliminated the court’s jurisdiction to hear appropriations for recreational trails in qualifying counties, so prohibition is warranted	The statute limits a park district’s appropriation authority, not the court’s jurisdiction; absent explicit jurisdiction-stripping language, jurisdiction remains	Denied: the statute does not patently and unambiguously remove common pleas subject-matter jurisdiction; the court retains power to hear the case

State ex rel. Drouhard v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 161 Ohio St.3d 357 (explains elements for writ of prohibition)
State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264 (availability of appeal ordinarily precludes prohibition)
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday, 164 Ohio St.3d 121 (appeal from final judgment resolves both validity of taking and compensation)
Huntington Natl. Bank v. Kontos, 145 Ohio St.3d 102 (appeal is an adequate remedy that precludes prohibition)
Ostanek v. Ostanek, 166 Ohio St.3d 1 (defining when a court has subject-matter jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Ohio Edison Co. v. Parrott, 73 Ohio St.3d 705 (limited exception when inferior court patently lacks jurisdiction)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (statutory limitations not labeled jurisdictional should be treated nonjurisdictional)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from substantive coverage rules)
Cincinnati v. Fourth Natl. Realty, L.L.C., 163 Ohio St.3d 409 (statutory language analyzed for jurisdictional effect)