State ex rel. Maher v. Akron, 2018 Ohio 4310

Appellants (Maher, Johnson, Cherrys and others) bought residential lots within the City of Akron’s recorded "Hickory Corridor" urban renewal area after 2008.
The City planned and later constructed a large combined-sewer overflow tunnel within the Hickory Corridor; construction caused tree removal, lights, noise, vibrations, and relocation of the Towpath near plaintiffs’ homes.
Plaintiffs alleged diminished property values and loss of quiet enjoyment, and filed claims for inverse condemnation (regulatory taking), breach of contract, and fraud in the inducement; complaint later amended to add additional plaintiffs.
The City moved for judgment on the pleadings; the Summit County Common Pleas Court granted the motion and certified the order for immediate appeal.
On appeal the Ninth District accepted the complaint allegations as true and considered whether plaintiffs could prove any set of facts entitling them to relief on (1) a partial regulatory-taking/inverse-condemnation theory and (2) breach of contract based on the Hickory Corridor Plan and real-estate sales agreements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs pled a regulatory taking (partial) supporting inverse condemnation	City’s planning, legislation authorizing the tunnel, and proceeding with construction constitute regulation that deprived plaintiffs of property value/uses	Plaintiffs failed to allege any ordinance, regulation, or other governmental rule that regulated plaintiffs’ use of their land	Court: No. Complaint did not allege governmental regulation of plaintiffs’ land use; thus partial regulatory-taking claim fails and no need to apply Penn Central factors
Whether plaintiffs stated a breach-of-contract claim based on the Hickory Corridor Plan and sales agreements	Plaintiffs relied on the recorded Hickory Corridor Plan and allege the City withheld material information, proceeded with the tunnel, and failed to adhere to the Plan—breaching the contracts and implied duty of good faith	The only operative written contracts were the quitclaim real-estate sales agreements (and amendments) whose integration clause makes the sales agreement the entire agreement; the Hickory Corridor Plan was not a contract term and plaintiffs did not identify any specific contractual term breached	Court: No. Plaintiffs failed to identify a specific contractual term the City breached; claims based solely on implied good-faith duty or the separate Plan are insufficient; breach claim fails

Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (establishes the three-factor, ad hoc Penn Central test for partial regulatory takings)
State ex rel. Shelly Materials v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 115 Ohio St.3d 337 (Ohio applies Penn Central factors to regulatory-takings claims)
State ex rel. Gilbert v. Cincinnati, 125 Ohio St.3d 385 (mandamus is proper to compel appropriation when an involuntary taking is alleged)
State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (inverse condemnation defined; recovery for government taking without formal eminent domain)
Whaley v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 92 Ohio St.3d 574 (motion for judgment on the pleadings resolves pure questions of law)
State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (standards for Civ.R. 12(C) judgment on the pleadings)
R.T.G., Inc. v. State, 98 Ohio St.3d 1 (distinguishing total and partial regulatory takings under Ohio law)
Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335 (definition of inverse condemnation as government taking without eminent domain)
Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St.3d 453 (no independent cause of action for breach of implied duty of good faith outside an underlying contract)