Texas Gas Transmissions, LLC v. Butler County Board of Commissioners
625 F.3d 973
6th Cir.2010Background
- Texas Gas owns two 26-inch pipelines that run under Princeton Road within and alongside Butler County's 66-foot right-of-way.
- Butler County plans Princeton Road improvements that will affect the pipelines and may require Texas Gas to reinforce or relocate segments at its expense.
- The district court granted declaratory relief favoring Butler County: County’s right-of-way is superior, improvements are not an unreasonable interference, and §5547.03 authorizes action at Texas Gas’s expense.
- Texas Gas challenged the district court’s interpretation and sought relief, including injunctive relief and later asserted a Takings Clause claim outside the right-of-way.
- Texas Gas conceded the County’s rights within the right-of-way but disputed rights outside it; the appeal focused on areas outside the right-of-way and constitutional takings issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5547.03 authorizes Butler County to compel Texas Gas to reinforce or remove pipelines at its expense. | Texas Gas argues district court misread § 5547.03 to permit County action outside the right-of-way. | Butler County contends the statute supports forcing reinforcement/removal within the project scope. | The issue is subsumed; the court lacks jurisdiction to review takings-related challenges, but upholds within-right-of-way authority. |
| Whether Texas Gas's Takings Clause claim is ripe for federal review. | Texas Gas asserts unconstitutional taking without adequate state remedy. | County argues takings claim is not ripe until state remedies are exhausted. | Unripe; federal court lacks jurisdiction pending exhaustion of Ohio state remedies. |
| Whether the federal court has jurisdiction to consider rights outside the right-of-way given Texas Gas's superior interest there. | Texas Gas maintains its property outside the right-of-way is at issue and remains unresolved. | County suggests the appeal should not reach extraneous-area issues yet. | Jurisdiction limited; the court abdicates review of outside-right-of-way issues due to ripeness/exhaustion concerns. |
Key Cases Cited
- River City Capital, LP v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, Clermont Cnty., Ohio, 491 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 2007) (unripe takings claims require exhaustion of state remedies)
- Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (Supreme Court 1985) (takings claims are not ripe until state remedies are exhausted)
- Coles v. Granville, 448 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2006) (Ohio mandamus procedure provides compensation mechanism in takings context)
- Bigelow v. Mich. Dep't of Natural Res., 970 F.2d 154 (6th Cir. 1992) (ripeness determines federal subject-matter jurisdiction)