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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2012–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Dublin v. Beatleygreen2 sentences2022Thus, based on R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(a), there was a rebuttable presumption that the appropriation was, in fact, necessary. {¶19} As explained in City of Dublin v. Beatley, 2018-Ohio-3354 , 119 N.E.3d 826, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.): * * * under R.C. §163.09(B), the burden of proof fell upon [Appellant] to demonstrate that the appropriation was not necessary. 2022Thus, based on R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(a), there was a rebuttable presumption that the appropriation was, in fact, necessary. {¶19} As explained in City of Dublin v. Beatley, 2018-Ohio-3354 , 119 N.E.3d 826, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.): * * * under R.C. §163.09(B), the burden of proof fell upon [Appellant] to demonstrate that the appropriation was not necessary. | 1 | 1 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen1 sentence2012Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶64} R.C. 163.08 states, “[a] resolution or ordinance of the governing or controlling body, council, or board of the agency declaring the necessity for the appropriation shall be prima-facie evidence of such necessity in the absence of proof showing an abuse of discretion by the agency in determining such necessity.” R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(b) further provides, “[t]he presentation by a public utility or common carrier of evidence of the necessity for the appropriation creates a rebuttable presumption of the necessity for the appropriation.” Furt | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns
green
2 sentences2025R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(a). “[I]f the landowners produce[] evidence that balances or counterbalances the presumption, then the presumption disappears and the case must be resolved on the evidence presented under the original burden of proof.” Ohio Power Company v. Burns, 2022-Ohio-4713, ¶ 32 . {¶22} Ohio law defines “public use” by listing what uses are not public. 2025R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(a). “[I]f the landowners produce[] evidence that balances or counterbalances the presumption, then the presumption disappears and the case must be resolved on the evidence presented under the original burden of proof.” Ohio Power Company v. Burns, 2022-Ohio-4713, ¶ 32 . {¶22} Ohio law defines “public use” by listing what uses are not public. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Columbia Gas v. Bailey
green
2 sentences2023Union Nos. 14-22-13, 14-22-14, 2023-Ohio-1245, ¶ 68 . {¶11} Generally, when a landowner challenges the necessity of an appropriation sought by an agency, the burden of proof to establish the necessity of the appropriation is “upon the agency by a preponderance of the evidence[.]” R.C. 163.09(B)(1).10 However, “[t]he presentation by a public utility or common carrier of evidence of the necessity for the appropriation creates a rebuttable presumption of the necessity for the appropriation.” Id. at (B)(1)(b) {¶12} Stated differently, where an “agency” presents evidence of the necessity of an appr 2023Union Nos. 14-22-13, 14-22-14, 2023-Ohio-1245, ¶ 68 . {¶11} Generally, when a landowner challenges the necessity of an appropriation sought by an agency, the burden of proof to establish the necessity of the appropriation is “upon the agency by a preponderance of the evidence[.]” R.C. 163.09(B)(1).10 However, “[t]he presentation by a public utility or common carrier of evidence of the necessity for the appropriation creates a rebuttable presumption of the necessity for the appropriation.” Id. at (B)(1)(b) {¶12} Stated differently, where an “agency” presents evidence of the necessity of an appr | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Myocare Nursing Home, Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank
green
1 sentence2020Only upon the production of sufficient rebutting evidence does the presumption disappear." Myocare Nursing Home, Inc. v. Fifth Third Bank, 98 Ohio St.3d 545 , 2003-Ohio-2287 , ¶ 35. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
City of Norwood v. Horney
green
1 sentence2012Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶64} R.C. 163.08 states, “[a] resolution or ordinance of the governing or controlling body, council, or board of the agency declaring the necessity for the appropriation shall be prima-facie evidence of such necessity in the absence of proof showing an abuse of discretion by the agency in determining such necessity.” R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(b) further provides, “[t]he presentation by a public utility or common carrier of evidence of the necessity for the appropriation creates a rebuttable presumption of the necessity for the appropriation.” Furt | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.