Relators claim in Ohio

2001“In cases of either physical invasion of the land or the destruction of a fundamental attribute of ownership like the right of access, the landowner need not establish the deprivation of all economically viable uses of the land.” (Emphasis sic.) Id., 83 Ohio St.3d at 342 , 699 N.E.2d at 1275 , citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 , 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2893 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 812-813 , and State ex rel.

2001“In cases of either physical invasion of the land or the destruction of a fundamental attribute of ownership like the right of access, the landowner need not establish the deprivation of all economically viable uses of the land.” (Emphasis sic.) Id., 83 Ohio St.3d at 342 , 699 N.E.2d at 1275 , citing Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), 505 U.S. 1003, 1015 , 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2893 , 120 L.Ed.2d 798, 812-813 , and State ex rel.

2023Royal v. Columbus, 3 Ohio St.2d 154, 158 , 209 N.E.2d 405 (1965), a taking exists under Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution when airflights are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with enjoyment and use of land.

2023Royal v. Columbus, 3 Ohio St.2d 154, 158 , 209 N.E.2d 405 (1965), a taking exists under Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution when airflights are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with enjoyment and use of land.

2023The simple fact that aircraft may fly over the Property does not transform it into land that is reasonably necessary for the establishment of an air navigation facility [as argued by Relators].” (Journal Entry, Nov. 1, 2022.) The trial court also relied upon two Ohio Supreme Court decisions, Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St.3d 287 , 2012-Ohio-780 , 964 N.E.2d 414 , and Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2012-Ohio-3897 , 975 N.E.2d 977 , for the proposition that a property owner has no redressable regulatory-taking claim against a municipality when the affected property lies outside of

2023The simple fact that aircraft may fly over the Property does not transform it into land that is reasonably necessary for the establishment of an air navigation facility [as argued by Relators].” (Journal Entry, Nov. 1, 2022.) The trial court also relied upon two Ohio Supreme Court decisions, Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St.3d 287 , 2012-Ohio-780 , 964 N.E.2d 414 , and Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2012-Ohio-3897 , 975 N.E.2d 977 , for the proposition that a property owner has no redressable regulatory-taking claim against a municipality when the affected property lies outside of

2023The simple fact that aircraft may fly over the Property does not transform it into land that is reasonably necessary for the establishment of an air navigation facility [as argued by Relators].” (Journal Entry, Nov. 1, 2022.) The trial court also relied upon two Ohio Supreme Court decisions, Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St.3d 287 , 2012-Ohio-780 , 964 N.E.2d 414 , and Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2012-Ohio-3897 , 975 N.E.2d 977 , for the proposition that a property owner has no redressable regulatory-taking claim against a municipality when the affected property lies outside of

2023The simple fact that aircraft may fly over the Property does not transform it into land that is reasonably necessary for the establishment of an air navigation facility [as argued by Relators].” (Journal Entry, Nov. 1, 2022.) The trial court also relied upon two Ohio Supreme Court decisions, Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St.3d 287 , 2012-Ohio-780 , 964 N.E.2d 414 , and Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2012-Ohio-3897 , 975 N.E.2d 977 , for the proposition that a property owner has no redressable regulatory-taking claim against a municipality when the affected property lies outside of

2020Syx v. Stow City Council, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4393 .] Elections—Amendments to city charter—Mandamus—Relators’ claim that city council was required to place proposed amendments to city charter on ballot barred by doctrine of laches—Relators did not establish a clear legal right to have proposed amendments placed on ballot or a clear legal duty on part of city council to place amendments on ballot—Writs denied.

2012Personal Jurisdiction {¶ 13} “It is rudimentary that in order to render a valid personal judgment, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156 , 464 N.E.2d 538 (1984).

2012Personal Jurisdiction {¶ 13} “It is rudimentary that in order to render a valid personal judgment, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156 , 464 N.E.2d 538 (1984).

2012Bates v. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate Dist., 130 Ohio St.3d 326 , 2011-Ohio-5456 , 958 N.E.2d 162 , ¶ 12. 4 January Term, 2012 {¶ 12} Relators claim that Judge Capper patently and unambiguously lacks both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in the parentage action.

2012Bates v. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate Dist., 130 Ohio St.3d 326 , 2011-Ohio-5456 , 958 N.E.2d 162 , ¶ 12. 4 January Term, 2012 {¶ 12} Relators claim that Judge Capper patently and unambiguously lacks both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed in the parentage action.

2011“Any direct encroachment upon land, which subjects it to a public use that excludes or restricts the dominion and control of the owner over it, is a taking of his property, for which he is guaranteed a right of compensation by section 19 [Article I of the Ohio Constitution].” Norwood v. Sheen (1933), 126 Ohio St. 482 , 186 N.E. 102 , paragraph one of the syllabus. *459 {¶ 60} In cases of flooding caused by actions of the government, we have held that “[t]he construction and operation of a municipal storm sewer system so as to cause material damage to a down-stream landowner, as a result of flo

2011“Any direct encroachment upon land, which subjects it to a public use that excludes or restricts the dominion and control of the owner over it, is a taking of his property, for which he is guaranteed a right of compensation by section 19 [Article I of the Ohio Constitution].” Norwood v. Sheen (1933), 126 Ohio St. 482 , 186 N.E. 102 , paragraph one of the syllabus. *459 {¶ 60} In cases of flooding caused by actions of the government, we have held that “[t]he construction and operation of a municipal storm sewer system so as to cause material damage to a down-stream landowner, as a result of flo

2011Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216 , 2002-Ohio-5923 , 778 N.E.2d 32, ¶ 11 . {¶ 21} Relators claim that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 519.12(H) in denying their protest.

2011Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216 , 2002-Ohio-5923 , 778 N.E.2d 32, ¶ 11 . {¶ 21} Relators claim that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 519.12(H) in denying their protest.

2011Northern Ohio Telephone Co. v. Winter (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 6, 8 . {¶14} Further, in Kelley, Judge v. State ex rel.

2011“Any direct encroachment upon land, which subjects it to a public use that excludes or restricts the dominion and control of the owner over it, is a taking of his property, for which he is guaranteed a right of compensation by section 19 [Article I of the Ohio Constitution].” Norwood v. Sheen (1933), 126 Ohio St. 482 , 186 N.E. 102 , paragraph one of the syllabus. *459 {¶ 60} In cases of flooding caused by actions of the government, we have held that “[t]he construction and operation of a municipal storm sewer system so as to cause material damage to a down-stream landowner, as a result of flo

2011“Any direct encroachment upon land, which subjects it to a public use that excludes or restricts the dominion and control of the owner over it, is a taking of his property, for which he is guaranteed a right of compensation by section 19 [Article I of the Ohio Constitution].” Norwood v. Sheen (1933), 126 Ohio St. 482 , 186 N.E. 102 , paragraph one of the syllabus. *459 {¶ 60} In cases of flooding caused by actions of the government, we have held that “[t]he construction and operation of a municipal storm sewer system so as to cause material damage to a down-stream landowner, as a result of flo

2011“Any direct encroachment upon land, which subjects it to a public use that excludes or restricts the dominion and control of the owner over it, is a taking of his property, for which he is guaranteed a right of compensation by section 19 [Article I of the Ohio Constitution].” Norwood v. Sheen (1933), 126 Ohio St. 482 , 186 N.E. 102 , paragraph one of the syllabus. *459 {¶ 60} In cases of flooding caused by actions of the government, we have held that “[t]he construction and operation of a municipal storm sewer system so as to cause material damage to a down-stream landowner, as a result of flo

2011“Any direct encroachment upon land, which subjects it to a public use that excludes or restricts the dominion and control of the owner over it, is a taking of his property, for which he is guaranteed a right of compensation by section 19 [Article I of the Ohio Constitution].” Norwood v. Sheen (1933), 126 Ohio St. 482 , 186 N.E. 102 , paragraph one of the syllabus. *459 {¶ 60} In cases of flooding caused by actions of the government, we have held that “[t]he construction and operation of a municipal storm sewer system so as to cause material damage to a down-stream landowner, as a result of flo

2011Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216 , 2002-Ohio-5923 , 778 N.E.2d 32, ¶ 11 . {¶ 21} Relators claim that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 519.12(H) in denying their protest.

2011Bd. of Elections, 97 Ohio St.3d 216 , 2002-Ohio-5923 , 778 N.E.2d 32, ¶ 11 . {¶ 21} Relators claim that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 519.12(H) in denying their protest.

2009Coles v. Granville, 116 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2007-Ohio-6057 , 877 N.E.2d 968 , ¶ 22; Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2005), 544 U.S. 528, 537 , 125 S.Ct. 2074 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (“The paradigmatic taking requiring just compensation is a direct government appropriation or physical invasion of private property”). 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Property Taken for Public Use {¶14} Relators claim entitlement to the requested relief in mandamus pursuant to the Takings Clause of the Ohio Constitution.

2009Coles v. Granville, 116 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2007-Ohio-6057 , 877 N.E.2d 968 , ¶ 22; Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2005), 544 U.S. 528, 537 , 125 S.Ct. 2074 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (“The paradigmatic taking requiring just compensation is a direct government appropriation or physical invasion of private property”). 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Property Taken for Public Use {¶14} Relators claim entitlement to the requested relief in mandamus pursuant to the Takings Clause of the Ohio Constitution.

2009Coles v. Granville, 116 Ohio St.3d 231 , 2007-Ohio-6057 , 877 N.E.2d 968 , ¶ 22; Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2005), 544 U.S. 528, 537 , 125 S.Ct. 2074 , 161 L.Ed.2d 876 (“The paradigmatic taking requiring just compensation is a direct government appropriation or physical invasion of private property”). 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Property Taken for Public Use {¶14} Relators claim entitlement to the requested relief in mandamus pursuant to the Takings Clause of the Ohio Constitution.

2007In her advisory opinion, the secretary advised all county boards of elections that — based on Morrison v. Colley (C.A.6, 2006), 467 F.3d 503 — R.C. 3513.257 requires that (1) “an independent candidate actually be unaffiliated, or disaffiliated, from any political party” and (2) “the required claim of unaffiliation by an independent candidate must be made in good faith.” Secretary of State Advisory Opinion.

2007Bd. of Elections (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 144, 145 , 718 N.E.2d 415 . {¶ 10} Relators claim that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by relying on Secretary of State Advisory Opinion No. 2007-05 and cases cited therein to reject relators’ candidacies for Mason Municipal Court judge.

2007Bd. of Elections (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 144, 145 , 718 N.E.2d 415 . {¶ 10} Relators claim that the board of elections abused its discretion and clearly disregarded applicable law by relying on Secretary of State Advisory Opinion No. 2007-05 and cases cited therein to reject relators’ candidacies for Mason Municipal Court judge.

2006Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 272 , 2003-Ohio-5791 , 798 N.E.2d 587 , ¶ 17. {¶ 39} Relators claim that the summary contained in the referendum petition was defective because it did not include the original map attached to the resolution of the area subject to the proposed rezoning.

2006Highlander v. Rudduck, 103 Ohio St.3d 370 , 2004-Ohio-4952 , 816 N.E.2d 213 , ¶ 8. {¶ 8} Relators claim entitlement to a writ of mandamus to compel the common pleas court judges to appoint a member to the commission.

2006Relators’ claim lacks merit. “[W]hen a referendum petition’s summary of a resolution contains substantially the same wording as the resolution itself, * * * the summary complies with the statutory requirement, even when the summary fails to include a statement regarding the meaning of zoning classifications, the purpose of the zoning change, or the uses specified in the development plan approved by the resolution.” McCord, 106 Ohio St.3d 346 , 2005-Ohio-4758 , 835 N.E.2d 336 , ¶ 43.

2006Relators’ claim lacks merit. “[W]hen a referendum petition’s summary of a resolution contains substantially the same wording as the resolution itself, * * * the summary complies with the statutory requirement, even when the summary fails to include a statement regarding the meaning of zoning classifications, the purpose of the zoning change, or the uses specified in the development plan approved by the resolution.” McCord, 106 Ohio St.3d 346 , 2005-Ohio-4758 , 835 N.E.2d 336 , ¶ 43.

2005Ditmars v. McSweeney (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 472, 477 , 764 N.E.2d 971 . {¶ 26} North Main presented the petition to Webb on July 28.

2005Ditmars v. McSweeney (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 472, 477 , 764 N.E.2d 971 . {¶ 26} North Main presented the petition to Webb on July 28.

2003Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 556, 559 , 621 N.E.2d 391 . {¶ 18} Relators claim that because the petition summary contains the same two inaccuracies as the resolution itself, the resolution may not be submitted to the electorate. {¶ 19} Relators’ claim lacks merit.

2003Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 556, 559 , 621 N.E.2d 391 . {¶ 18} Relators claim that because the petition summary contains the same two inaccuracies as the resolution itself, the resolution may not be submitted to the electorate. {¶ 19} Relators’ claim lacks merit.

2002In other words, “[w]here a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred * * *.”1 Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001), 533 U.S. 606, 617 , 121 S.Ct. 2448, 2457 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592, 607 . {¶ 27} Relators claim that they have established a taking because they have satisfied either prong of the Agins disjunctive test.

2002In other words, “[w]here a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred * * *.”1 Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001), 533 U.S. 606, 617 , 121 S.Ct. 2448, 2457 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592, 607 . {¶ 27} Relators claim that they have established a taking because they have satisfied either prong of the Agins disjunctive test.

2001Civ.R. 15(A); Grendell at 631 , 716 N.E.2d at 707 . {¶ 10} Relators’ motion to add the city council and its members as respondents is denied.