State ex rel. Dynamic Industries, Inc. v. Cincinnati (Slip Opinion), 147 Ohio St. 3d 422

Dynamic Industries, Inc. (DI) owns a Cincinnati building it seeks to demolish as dilapidated and economically unsalvageable.
Two preservation groups filed a historic-designation application for the building; the city’s code prohibits demolition while such an application is pending.
DI applied for a demolition permit while the designation application was pending; the city did not process the demolition application for that reason.
After DI filed an original mandamus action in the court of appeals, the city approved the historic designation; DI has not applied for the required certificate of appropriateness to alter or demolish a designated landmark.
The court of appeals granted the city’s motion to dismiss; the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief prohibiting interference with demolition	DI sought mandamus/injunction to force issuance of demolition permit	City argued the appeals court lacks original jurisdiction for prohibitory injunctions	Court: appeals court lacked jurisdiction for injunctive relief
Whether DI could recover money damages in mandamus	DI sought damages for costs from denial/nonissuance of permit	City argued mandamus is not substitute for an action at law for money	Court: mandamus cannot ordinarily award money damages; appeals court lacked jurisdiction
Whether DI’s constitutional challenge to zoning code was ripe in appeals mandamus	DI sought declaratory relief invalidating zoning provisions	City argued appeals court lacks original jurisdiction over declaratory judgments in such actions	Court: appeals court lacked jurisdiction for declaratory relief
Whether DI was entitled to mandamus compelling demolition permit (and whether takings claim ripe)	DI claimed a clear right to a demolition permit and alleged a taking	City argued DI failed to exhaust administrative remedies (no certificate of appropriateness applied for), so city had no clear duty and takings claim is unripe	Court: DI failed to exhaust administrative remedies; takings claim unripe; no clear legal right or duty; mandamus denied

State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (discussing review of original mandamus judgments of courts of appeals)
State ex rel. Williams v. Trim, 145 Ohio St.3d 204 (a court of appeals lacks original jurisdiction to grant prohibitory injunctions)
State ex rel. Levin v. Schremp, 73 Ohio St.3d 733 (mandamus is not ordinarily a substitute for an action at law to recover money)
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (a takings claim is not ripe until a landowner exhausts available administrative remedies)
State ex rel. Schindel v. Rowe, 25 Ohio St.2d 47 (a plaintiff must show a clear legal right and a corresponding clear legal duty to obtain mandamus)
State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (elements required for extraordinary relief in mandamus)