Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duncan v. Village of Middlefieldgreen2 sentences2026The majority holds, correctly, that an area variance is governed by the practical-difficulties standard, a lesser showing than the unnecessary hardship required for a use variance, Kisil, 12 Ohio St.3d at syllabus, and that the trial court reversibly erred by measuring the area variance against “hardship” rather than against the practical-difficulties factors of Duncan, 23 Ohio St.3d at 83, 86 . 2026The majority holds, correctly, that an area variance is governed by the practical-difficulties standard, a lesser showing than the unnecessary hardship required for a use variance, Kisil, 12 Ohio St.3d at syllabus, and that the trial court reversibly erred by measuring the area variance against “hardship” rather than against the practical-difficulties factors of Duncan, 23 Ohio St.3d at 83, 86 . | 1 | 7 |
Dsuban v. Union Township Board of Zoning Appealsgreen2 sentences2024Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 140 Ohio App.3d 602, 607-608 , 748 N.E.2d 597 (12th Dist.2000) (recognizing split in appellate districts as to whether practical difficulties test applies to townships and holding it inapplicable). 2024Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 140 Ohio App.3d 602, 607-608 , 748 N.E.2d 597 (12th Dist.2000) (recognizing split in appellate districts as to whether practical difficulties test applies to townships and holding it inapplicable). | 1 | 2 |
ProTerra, Inc. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appealsgreen2 sentences2026See also ProTerra, Inc., 2020-Ohio-6739, at ¶ 24 (8th Dist.). 2026See also ProTerra, Inc., 2020-Ohio-6739, at ¶ 24 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Zangara v. Chester Twp. Trusteesgreen1 sentence2000See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Henley v. City of Youngstown Board of Zoning Appeals
green
2 sentences2026Henley, 90 Ohio St.3d at 147 ; Kisil, 12 Ohio St.3d at 34 . 2011No. 23465, 2007-Ohio-2887 , 2007 WL 1695118 , at ¶ 9, quoting Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 142, 147 , 735 N.E.2d 433 . | 2 | 2011–2026 |
Duncan v. Village of Middlefield
green
2 sentences2011When seeking an area variance, it must be determined whether a property has encountered practical difficulties in the use of the property. {¶ 26} In Duncan v. Middlefield (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 83 , 491 N.E.2d 692 , certiorari denied (1986), 479 U.S. 986 , 107 S.Ct. 576 , 93 L.Ed.2d 579 , the Ohio Supreme Court explained the practical difficulties test as follows: “[A] property owner encounters ‘practical difficulties’ whenever an area zoning requirement (e.g., frontage, setback, height) unreasonably deprives him of a permitted use of his property. 2011When seeking an area variance, it must be determined whether a property has encountered practical difficulties in the use of the property. {¶ 26} In Duncan v. Middlefield (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 83 , 491 N.E.2d 692 , certiorari denied (1986), 479 U.S. 986 , 107 S.Ct. 576 , 93 L.Ed.2d 579 , the Ohio Supreme Court explained the practical difficulties test as follows: “[A] property owner encounters ‘practical difficulties’ whenever an area zoning requirement (e.g., frontage, setback, height) unreasonably deprives him of a permitted use of his property. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Kisil v. City of Sandusky
green
1 sentence2026Henley, 90 Ohio St.3d at 147 ; Kisil, 12 Ohio St.3d at 34 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
County of Summit v. Stoll, 23465 (6-13-2007)
green
1 sentence2011No. 23465, 2007-Ohio-2887 , 2007 WL 1695118 , at ¶ 9, quoting Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 142, 147 , 735 N.E.2d 433 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Trent v. German Township Board of Zoning Appeals
neutral
2 sentences2002Common sense requires that the Court take cognizance of a few factors: zoning regulations are about long-range planning, and cannot be upset merely because of short term, or individualized, inconvenience; zoning regulations are proposed, debated, and enacted by residents of the community directly affected, and a court sitting at distance should not second-guess the legislative wisdom of the drafters merely because not all parties are happy with [the] result * * ” 144 Ohio App.3d at 18 , 759 N.E.2d 421 (quoting from trial court opinion). {¶ 60} As a further point, we must note that the Stickelm 2002Common sense requires that the Court take cognizance of a few factors: zoning regulations are about long-range planning, and cannot be upset merely because of short term, or individualized, inconvenience; zoning regulations are proposed, debated, and enacted by residents of the community directly affected, and a court sitting at distance should not second-guess the legislative wisdom of the drafters merely because not all parties are happy with [the] result * * ” 144 Ohio App.3d at 18 , 759 N.E.2d 421 (quoting from trial court opinion). {¶ 60} As a further point, we must note that the Stickelm | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.