State ex rel. Kerns v. Simmers, 101 N.E.3d 430

Chesapeake Exploration applied under R.C. 1509.28 to unitize ~593 acres to drill and hydraulically fracture three horizontal wells, aggregating tracts over a common oil-and-gas reservoir.
The landowners own ~120 acres in the proposed unit and objected, claiming lack of meaningful lease negotiation and that the unitization order effects a taking without compensation.
The Division chief issued a unitization order over the landowners' objection and allocated royalties/net proceeds to them; the landowners appealed to the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission, arguing the order was unlawful, unreasonable, and unconstitutional.
The Commission dismissed the appeal, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of the statute or the order.
The landowners then filed this original mandamus petition asking the Ohio Supreme Court to compel appropriation proceedings under R.C. Chapter 163, arguing the unitization is a taking requiring compensation.
The Court denied mandamus, concluding the landowners had an adequate legal remedy by appeal to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 1509.37 and therefore mandamus was not appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether writ of mandamus is proper to compel appropriation proceedings after issuance of a unitization order	Landowners: Unitization effects a taking; mandamus should force appropriation/compensation because administrative review was inadequate	Respondents: Landowners had an adequate remedy at law (appeal to Franklin Cty Common Pleas under R.C. 1509.37) so mandamus is improper	Court: Denied mandamus — appeal to common pleas was an adequate remedy, so extraordinary writ not available
Whether an appeal under R.C. 1509.37 would provide a complete remedy for constitutional takings challenge	Landowners: Appeal on the record and statutory process would not allow full relief or appropriation determination	Respondents: Trial-court review could invalidate the order as unlawful if statute unconstitutional; no additional injunctions or appropriation writs would be needed	Court: Appeal is complete — trial court could rule the statute unconstitutional and vacate the order, obviating need for appropriation proceedings
Whether an appeal under R.C. 1509.37 would be sufficiently speedy	Landowners: Statutory appeal would be too slow to protect property rights	Respondents: Statutorily prioritized, ordinary appellate delay does not make remedy inadequate	Court: Appeal is sufficiently speedy; ordinary appellate delay does not justify mandamus absent exceptional delay like Shemo

Amoco Prod. Co. v. Heimann, 904 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1990) (describing purpose and effects of unitization)
Shelby v. Hoffman, 7 Ohio St. 450 (1857) (mandamus is an extraordinary prerogative writ to be used only when no specific remedy exists)
Ex parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604 (1881) (mandamus should not substitute for available legal remedies)
State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (1983) (elements required for mandamus relief)
State ex rel. Cartmell v. Dorrian, 11 Ohio St.3d 177 (1984) (failure to pursue statutory appeal does not render appeal inadequate)
State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 83 Ohio St.3d 179 (1998) (adequate remedy defined as complete, beneficial, and speedy)
State ex rel. Arnett v. Winemiller, 80 Ohio St.3d 255 (1997) (declaratory relief insufficient where mandatory injunctive relief also required)
State ex rel. Shemo v. Mayfield Hts., 93 Ohio St.3d 1 (2001) (mandamus appropriate where extraordinary delay made ordinary remedies inadequate)
State ex rel. Willis v. Sheboy, 6 Ohio St.3d 167 (1983) (legislatively provided appeal process is ordinarily adequate despite longer delay)