19 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1972–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York Citygreen2 sentences2002Penn Cent. at 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646 , 57 L.Ed.2d 631 . {¶ 35} Penn Cent. provides the proper taking test when the regulation deprives the property of less than 100 percent of its economically beneficial use. 2002Penn Cent. at 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646 , 57 L.Ed.2d 631 . {¶ 35} Penn Cent. provides the proper taking test when the regulation deprives the property of less than 100 percent of its economically beneficial use. | 2 | 3 |
Helen L. Cooley, William O. Cooley, and the 7c Company v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020“A landowner need not resort to futile piecemeal litigation or submit to repetitive application requirements to make a taking claim ripe.” Cooley v. United States, 324 F.3d 1297, 1302 (Fed.Cir.2003). 2020“A landowner need not resort to futile piecemeal litigation or submit to repetitive application 13 January Term, 2020 requirements to make a taking claim ripe.” Cooley v. United States, 324 F.3d 1297, 1302 (Fed.Cir.2003). | 2 | 2 |
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angelesgreen1 sentence2024See First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles Cnty., Cal., 482 U.S. 304 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
green
2 sentences2014The taking standard, as applicable here, is one applying to “a regulation that permanently requires a property owner to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses of his or her land.” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm. v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 511, 518 , 184 L.Ed.2d 417 (2012), citing Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1019 . 2001Id. at 1030-1031 , 112 S.Ct. at 2901-2902 , 120 L.Ed.2d at 821-823 . | 2 | 2001–2014 |
North Counties Hydro-Electric Co. v. United States
green
2 sentences2011The taking claim requires that ‘ * * * a servitude must have been imposed upon the land, that is to say, a subjection of the land for a more or less definite time to a use inconsistent with the rights of the owner.’ North Counties Hydro-Electric Co. v. United States (1947), 108 Ct.Cl. 470, 485 , 70 F.Supp., 900, 903 . 2011The taking claim requires that ‘ * * * a servitude must have been imposed upon the land, that is to say, a subjection of the land for a more or less definite time to a use inconsistent with the rights of the owner.’ North Counties Hydro-Electric Co. v. United States (1947), 108 Ct.Cl. 470, 485 , 70 F.Supp., 900, 903 . | 2 | 2006–2011 |
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
green
2 sentences2002Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002), 535 U.S. 302 , -, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 1483 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517, 545 , see, also, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. at 617 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 . {¶ 36} In 1992, the Supreme Court again visited the regulatory-takings law in Lucas . 2002Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002), 535 U.S. 302 , -, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 1483 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517, 545 , see, also, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. at 617 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 . {¶ 36} In 1992, the Supreme Court again visited the regulatory-takings law in Lucas . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
green
2 sentences2002Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002), 535 U.S. 302 , -, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 1483 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517, 545 , see, also, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. at 617 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 . {¶ 36} In 1992, the Supreme Court again visited the regulatory-takings law in Lucas . 2002Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002), 535 U.S. 302 , -, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 1483 , 152 L.Ed.2d 517, 545 , see, also, Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. at 617 , 121 S.Ct. 2448 , 150 L.Ed.2d 592 . {¶ 36} In 1992, the Supreme Court again visited the regulatory-takings law in Lucas . | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Maumee v. Anistik
green
1 sentence2026The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that it is “permissible for a trial judge to instruct a jury that the defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test is evidence of his or her intoxication at the time of the taking of the test.” Maumee v. Anistik, 1994-Ohio-157, ¶ 14 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Gwynne
green
1 sentence2019These varied and chaotic circumstances all pose the risk of distracting trial courts from their obligation to consider the core purposes of sentencing before taking away a defendant’s liberty. {¶ 84} Taking factors like these into account, the court of appeals determined that “the understandably strong feelings must be tempered by a sanction clearly and convincingly based upon the record to effectuate the purposes of sentencing.” 2017-Ohio-7570, ¶ 30 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State ex rel. Doner v. Zody
green
1 sentence2015Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 , 2011-Ohio- 6117, ¶ 46. {¶ 13} The record demonstrates that the township took several actions that would have triggered the statute of limitations for the Grays' taking claim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States
green
2 sentences2014The taking standard, as applicable here, is one applying to “a regulation that permanently requires a property owner to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses of his or her land.” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm. v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 511, 518 , 184 L.Ed.2d 417 (2012), citing Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1019 . 2014The taking standard, as applicable here, is one applying to “a regulation that permanently requires a property owner to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses of his or her land.” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm. v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 511, 518 , 184 L.Ed.2d 417 (2012), citing Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1019 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Boice v. Village of Ottawa Hills, Unpublished Decision (8-31-2007)
neutral
2 sentences2013Lucas No. L-06- 1208, 2007-Ohio-4471, ¶ 34 . 2013Lucas No. L-06-1208, 2007-Ohio-4471 , 2007 WL 2458488 , at ¶ 34. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Duncan v. Village of Middlefield
green
2 sentences2013Id. at ¶ 49. {¶ 29} In the case now before us, instead of analyzing the Boices’ taking claim, the majority cites Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83 , 491 N.E.2d 692 (1986), and redetermines whether a variance should have been granted. 2013Id. at ¶ 49. {¶ 29} In the case now before us, instead of analyzing the Boices’ taking claim, the majority cites Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83 , 491 N.E.2d 692 (1986), and redetermines whether a variance should have been granted. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Chavez v. City of Laramie
green
1 sentence2009In 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Chavez v. Laramie (Wyo.1964), 389 P.2d 23, 24-25 , the Wyoming Supreme Court rejected a taking claim for water damages to a house and apartment that occurred when a contractor hired by the state and city to construct a new viaduct and highway approaches negligently crushed a sewer line and severed a water main. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
City of Maumee v. Anistik
green
2 sentences2007As the state points out, the Ohio Supreme Court has declared: {¶ 70} "It is, of course, permissible for a trial judge to instruct a jury that the defendant's refusal to submit to a chemical test is evidence of his or her intoxication at the time of the taking of the test." Maumee v. Anistik (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 339 , 343 . {¶ 71} The Court specifically and unanimously approved the jury instruction used by the trial court here. 2007Id. at 344 , citing 4 Ohio Jury Instructions (1993) 405, Section 545.25(10). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Cuyahoga Falls v. Mikolajczyk
neutral
2 sentences2003Cuyahoga Falls v. Mikolajczyk (M.C.1962), 90 Ohio Law Abs. 28 , 26 O.O.2d 33 , 187 N.E.2d 197 . 2003Cuyahoga Falls v. Mikolajczyk (M.C.1962), 90 Ohio Law Abs. 28 , 26 O.O.2d 33 , 187 N.E.2d 197 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Agins v. City of Tiburon
red
2 sentences1998Agins v. Tiburon (1980), 447 U.S. 255 , 100 S.Ct. 2138 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106 . {¶ 14} The landowner in Agins alleged that zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional and so burdened his enjoyment of the property that they constituted a taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, for which he sought damages. 1998Agins v. Tiburon (1980), 447 U.S. 255 , 100 S.Ct. 2138 , 65 L.Ed.2d 106 . {¶ 14} The landowner in Agins alleged that zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional and so burdened his enjoyment of the property that they constituted a taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, for which he sought damages. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Giles v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1972Defendant relies on Brady v. Maryland (1963), 373 U. S. 83 and Giles v. Maryland (1967), 386 U. S. 66 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1972Defendant relies on Brady v. Maryland (1963), 373 U. S. 83 and Giles v. Maryland (1967), 386 U. S. 66 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.