2016 Ohio 7640
Ohio2016Background
- In April 2013 Cleveland granted a 16-day permit to close part of West Third Street for filming; closure occurred in June 2013.
- Plaintiff Cuyahoga Lakefront Land, L.L.C. ("Lakefront") owns a parking lot (the "Pit") with entrances on West Third and West Ninth; the closure blocked access to the West Third entrance.
- During the closure the Pit remained open and accessible via the West Ninth entrance; signage directed drivers to the alternative entrance, and the production company paid Lakefront for reserved spaces on two days.
- Lakefront claimed lost profits of $61,399 tied to the temporary closure and pursued multiple lawsuits, including state and federal actions; federal court dismissed takings claims as unripe.
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals issued a writ of mandamus directing Cleveland to commence appropriation proceedings; the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed whether the temporary closure constituted a compensable taking under Ohio law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether temporary closure of an abutting public street that blocked one of two entrances is a compensable taking under Ohio law | Lakefront: closure substantially, materially, and unreasonably interfered with its easement of access and caused compensable taking (lost profits) | Cleveland: interference was temporary, customers still had access via alternate entrance; any inconvenience was common and noncompensable | Held: No compensable taking; temporary loss of one entrance for 16 days did not substantially, materially, or unreasonably interfere with access; mandamus reversed |
| Whether mandamus is proper to compel appropriation proceedings for alleged involuntary taking | Lakefront: mandamus appropriate because a taking occurred | Cleveland: no taking, so no duty to institute appropriation | Held: Mandamus requires clear right and duty; Lakefront failed to show a compensable taking, so mandamus denied |
| Whether federal takings or due-process claims should be decided by the Ohio Supreme Court | Lakefront: invoked Fifth Amendment in passing | Cleveland: issues were not properly presented; federal claims not developed | Held: Court declined to analyze federal takings; limited decision to Ohio-law takings; due-process claims not before court |
| Whether temporary interference similar to highway construction takings jurisprudence is compensable | Lakefront: argued substantial business impairment from temporary closure | Cleveland: cited precedent that temporary interferences during public works are noncompensable inconveniences | Held: Court treated this as analogous to noncompensable temporary interferences (mere circuitry of travel) and declined to award compensation |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. R.T.G., Inc. v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 1 (2002) (overview of regulatory-takings complexity and purpose of Takings Clauses)
- State ex rel. OTR v. Columbus, 76 Ohio St.3d 203 (1996) (property owner has easement of access to abutting public street; substantial/material/unreasonable interference can require compensation)
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (2011) (mandamus is proper to compel appropriation proceedings where involuntary taking is alleged)
- State ex rel. Merritt v. Linzell, 163 Ohio St. 97 (1955) (mere circuitry of travel and reduced traffic from roadway changes can be noncompensable)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (factors for regulatory takings analysis)
- Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960) (Takings Clause prevents government from forcing a subset of the public to bear public burdens alone)