2021 Ohio 194
Ohio2021Background
- Ohio Power sought easements by eminent domain across properties owned by relators (Bohlen, Burns, May, Dexter) to build a high-voltage transmission line.
- Relators denied necessity under R.C. 163.08; the Washington County Common Pleas judge (Halliday) held a necessity hearing and ruled for Ohio Power, finding the takings necessary and for public use.
- Relators immediately appealed the necessity determination to the Fourth District under R.C. 163.09(B)(3).
- Despite the appeal, Judge Halliday set a jury trial on compensation to begin March 2, 2021. Relators filed this action seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the compensation trial while their interlocutory appeal is pending.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio granted Ohio Power’s motion to intervene, denied Ohio Power’s motion to file notice of relators’ separate appeal from the trial-date order, and considered whether the trial court is divested of jurisdiction while the R.C. 163.09(B)(3) appeal is pending.
- The Court held that the compensation trial cannot commence during the pendency of the landowners’ R.C. 163.09(B)(3) appeal and granted a writ of prohibition precluding Judge Halliday from proceeding with the compensation trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may hold a compensation trial while a landowner’s immediate appeal under R.C. 163.09(B)(3) is pending | Relators: R.C. 163.09(B)(2) makes the court’s duty to proceed “subject to” the owner’s immediate appeal, so jurisdiction is extinguished while the appeal is pending | Judge Halliday/Ohio Power: “Subject to” relates only to the irrebuttable presumption/burden or does not divest jurisdiction; R.C. 163.19 and trial-court discretion to stay support proceeding | Held: Compensation trial cannot commence during the pendency of the R.C. 163.09(B)(3) appeal; trial court is divested of jurisdiction. |
| Whether R.C. 163.19 gives trial courts discretion to proceed despite an R.C. 163.09(B)(3) appeal | Relators: R.C. 163.19 applies to appeals from final judgments, not the interlocutory R.C. 163.09(B)(3) appeal | Ohio Power: R.C. 163.19 allows stays and suggests trial-court discretion to continue | Held: R.C. 163.19 does not govern the interlocutory appeal under R.C. 163.09(B)(3); it addresses appeals from final judgments. |
| Whether common-law divestiture of jurisdiction bars the compensation trial while appeal pending | Relators: Timely appeal places the scope of takings before the appellate court, so a compensation trial would be inconsistent with appellate jurisdiction | Opponents: Public-policy and speed of eminent-domain projects would be frustrated; trial court should retain authority | Held: Common-law principle that an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction over matters inconsistent with the appellate court’s power applies here; proceeding would conflict with the Fourth District’s jurisdiction. |
| Whether relators must show lack of an adequate remedy at law to obtain prohibition | Relators: Because jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking, they need not show inadequate remedy | Respondents: An ordinary remedy might exist and should be considered | Held: Because jurisdiction is patently and unambiguously lacking, relators need not establish inadequacy of ordinary remedies; peremptory writ issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bates v. Court of Appeals for Sixth Appellate Dist., 130 Ohio St.3d 326 (2011) (sets elements for extraordinary-writ relief and the patently-and-unambiguously-lacking-jurisdiction exception to the ordinary-remedy requirement)
- State ex rel. Rock v. School Emps. Retirement Bd., 96 Ohio St.3d 206 (2002) (timely appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction over matters inconsistent with appellate review)
- State ex rel. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 129 Ohio St.3d 30 (2011) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to proceed on claims affected by a pending appeal)
- Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pope, 54 Ohio St.2d 12 (1978) (pre-2007 rule that certain preliminary orders were reviewable only after final judgment)
- State ex rel. Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 126 Ohio St.3d 41 (2010) (extraordinary relief by peremptory writ appropriate where legal right is clear)