2022 Ohio 323
Ohio2022Background:
- Duncan owns a 0.10-acre landlocked lot adjacent to an abandoned railroad right‑of‑way; he hoped Aurora would convert the right‑of‑way to provide road access.
- Aurora negotiated/settled to transfer the right‑of‑way to American Transmission Systems, Inc. (ATSI) for construction of high‑voltage transmission lines.
- Duncan sued in the Ohio Court of Appeals alleging the lines create unique safety and health risks (arcing and cancer) to his small lot, and that the lines constitute a private and public nuisance and a taking.
- He sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief halting construction, compensatory damages, and a writ of mandamus directing respondents to commence appropriation proceedings.
- The court of appeals dismissed the nuisance/declaratory/injunctive/compensatory claims for lack of original jurisdiction and dismissed the mandamus claim for failure to allege an actionable taking; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts of appeals have original jurisdiction to decide nuisance/declaratory/injunctive/compensatory claims under Art. IV, §3(B) | Duncan filed those claims in the court of appeals to stop the project and preserve claims | Courts of appeals' original jurisdiction is limited to specific writs and completing causes on review; they cannot grant broad declaratory/injunctive/compensatory relief | Court lacks original jurisdiction over nuisance, declaratory, prohibitory injunctive, and damages claims; those counts properly dismissed (Pratts cited) |
| Whether mandamus to compel appropriation proceedings lies absent an actionable taking | Duncan requested mandamus compelling appropriation, alleging the lines effect a taking of his lot | Respondents argued Duncan did not plead facts showing a compensable taking or clear right to relief | Mandamus denied because complaint fails to allege a clear, actionable taking required to compel appropriation |
| Whether asserted risks (arcing, cancer) from nearby transmission lines constitute a taking | Duncan alleged unique safety/health risks to his small lot that other lots would not suffer | Respondents and court say allegations of speculative or generalized risk are insufficient to establish substantial/unreasonable interference | Speculative risks of harm alone do not establish an actionable taking; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether denial of access, regulatory taking, or consequential damages support a taking claim | Duncan alleged loss of access, regulatory approval deprived him of economically viable use, and unique consequential harms | He purchased the lot landlocked; no ordinance alleged to regulate his property; Ohio precedents reject consequential damages as takings | No compensable denial of access (lot was already landlocked); unsupported regulatory‑taking and consequential‑damages claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratts v. Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81 (2004) (courts of appeals lack original jurisdiction to grant declaratory, prohibitory injunctive, or compensatory relief outside specified writs)
- State ex rel. Neer v. Indus. Comm., 53 Ohio St.2d 22 (1978) (scope of courts of appeals’ original jurisdiction under Article IV, §3(B))
- State ex rel. New Wen, Inc. v. Marchbanks, 159 Ohio St.3d 15 (2020) (mandamus to compel appropriation requires clear right to relief and an actionable taking)
- State ex rel. OTR v. Columbus, 76 Ohio St.3d 203 (1996) (takings require substantial or unreasonable interference with property rights)
- Smith v. Cent. Power Co., 103 Ohio St. (1921) (discussion that danger from high‑voltage wires alone, without interference with access/light/air/view, is not a ground for objection)
- McKee v. Akron, 176 Ohio St. 282 (1964) (injury common to neighborhood or differing in degree, not kind, is not an actionable taking)
- State ex rel. Martre v. Reed, 161 Ohio St.3d 281 (2020) (standards for reviewing motions to dismiss; treat factual allegations as true but not legal conclusions)
- State ex rel. Gadell‑Newton v. Husted, 153 Ohio St.3d 225 (2018) (distinguishing mandatory and prohibitory injunctive relief and limits on courts of appeals)