declaratory judgment action challenge in Ohio

2005In Driscoll v. Austintown Associates (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 263 , the court held that a property owner has a right to proceed with a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of a zoning restriction regardless of whether the owner could have filed an administrative appeal. {¶ 17} Driscoll was subsequently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Karches v. Cincinnati (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 12 .

1980Driscoll v. Austintown Associates (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 263 .

2022Cool does not have a legal interest adverse to any defendant, and therefore, cannot establish a "real justiciable controversy and has no standing to bring a declaratory judgment action to challenge this particular statute." Kuhar, supra, at ¶ 15 .

2017The postconviction relief statute was enacted to provide " 'the best method of protecting constitutional rights of individuals, and, at the same time, provide a more orderly method of hearing such matters.' " Kott v. Maxwell , 3 Ohio App.2d 337 , 210 N.E.2d 746 (1965), paragraph one of the syllabus, quoting R.C. 2953.21. {¶ 26} Therefore, because Otte has no right to file a declaratory judgment action to challenge his death sentence, the trial court properly dismissed Otte's complaint.

2017The postconviction relief statute was enacted to provide " 'the best method of protecting constitutional rights of individuals, and, at the same time, provide a more orderly method of hearing such matters.' " Kott v. Maxwell , 3 Ohio App.2d 337 , 210 N.E.2d 746 (1965), paragraph one of the syllabus, quoting R.C. 2953.21. {¶ 26} Therefore, because Otte has no right to file a declaratory judgment action to challenge his death sentence, the trial court properly dismissed Otte's complaint.

2015In Moore, the Supreme Court did not define the term "adjacent." However, the Supreme Court and other Ohio courts have defined "adjacent" in other property law contexts. {¶ 31} In Dixon v. Van Sweringen Co., 121 Ohio St. 56 (1929),3 the Supreme Court defined "adjacent" as: "Ordinarily, it means 'to lie near, close, or contiguous.' Webster.

2013Clark v. Woodmere, 28 Ohio App.3d 66, 67 , 502 N.E.2d 222 (8th Dist.1985).

2013Clark v. Woodmere, 28 Ohio App.3d 66, 67 , 502 N.E.2d 222 (8th Dist.1985).

2012(No. 2010-1363—Submitted September 6, 2011—Decided August 30, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA2009-08-205, 2010-Ohio-2962 . __________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT Property owners whose property is adjacent to property rezoned by a foreign municipality may use a declaratory-judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of the zoning action if the owner pleads that he has suffered an injury caused by the rezoning that is likely to be redressed. __________________ O’CONNOR, C.J. {¶ 1} In this appeal, we return to territory recently visited in Clifton v. Bla

2012(No. 2010-1363—Submitted September 6, 2011—Decided August 30, 2012.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Butler County, No. CA2009-08-205, 2010-Ohio-2962 . __________________ SYLLABUS OF THE COURT Property owners whose property is adjacent to property rezoned by a foreign municipality may use a declaratory-judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of the zoning action if the owner pleads that he has suffered an injury caused by the rezoning that is likely to be redressed. __________________ O’CONNOR, C.J. {¶ 1} In this appeal, we return to territory recently visited in Clifton v. Bla

2012Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 , 95 S.Ct. 2197 , 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).

2012Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 500 , 95 S.Ct. 2197 , 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).

2006Co. v. Forsmark, 160 Ohio App.3d 277 , 2005-Ohio-1635 . {¶ 13} Mr. Kuhar does not have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action to challenge the Budget Bill because no real justiciable controversy exists.

2006Co. v. Forsmark, 160 Ohio App.3d 277 , 2005-Ohio-1635 . {¶ 13} Mr. Kuhar does not have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action to challenge the Budget Bill because no real justiciable controversy exists.

2006As such, courts entertain such actions only where the alleged wrong affects the citizenry as a whole, involves issues of great importance and interest to the public at large, and the public injury by its refusal would be serious." Id. at 381 . {¶ 13} In Smith, 2005-Ohio-2961 , the plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory scheme pertaining to the desertion of a child within seventy-two hours of its birth.

2006As such, courts entertain such actions only where the alleged wrong affects the citizenry as a whole, involves issues of great importance and interest to the public at large, and the public injury by its refusal would be serious." Id. at 381 . {¶ 13} In Smith, 2005-Ohio-2961 , the plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of the statutory scheme pertaining to the desertion of a child within seventy-two hours of its birth.

2005In Driscoll v. Austintown Associates (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 263 , the court held that a property owner has a right to proceed with a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of a zoning restriction regardless of whether the owner could have filed an administrative appeal. {¶ 17} Driscoll was subsequently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Karches v. Cincinnati (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 12 .

2004Consequently, he must endure the deterioration that afflicts a neighborhood at an accelerated pace following a declaration of blight." Id. {¶ 16} We hold that a property owner may bring a declaratory-judgment action to challenge a blight/urban-renewal designation provided that an appropriation proceeding does not exist.

2004Lieux, 154 Ohio St. at 415 . {¶ 15} In Jones v. Chagrin Falls (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 456 , the Supreme Court, albeit in dicta, appeared to sanction the employment of a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of an ordinance as applied to a particular landowner; the Court. 2 See id. at 460 .

2004Lieux, 154 Ohio St. at 415 . {¶ 15} In Jones v. Chagrin Falls (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 456 , the Supreme Court, albeit in dicta, appeared to sanction the employment of a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of an ordinance as applied to a particular landowner; the Court. 2 See id. at 460 .

2004Lieux, 154 Ohio St. at 415 . {¶ 15} In Jones v. Chagrin Falls (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 456 , the Supreme Court, albeit in dicta, appeared to sanction the employment of a declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of an ordinance as applied to a particular landowner; the Court. 2 See id. at 460 .