Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 163
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09 (2026)

Valuation of property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 10, 2007
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 7 - 127th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) If no answer is filed pursuant to section 163.08 of the Revised Code, and no approval ordered by the court to a settlement of the rights of all necessary parties, the court, on motion of a public agency, shall declare the value of the property taken and the damages, if any, to the residue to be as set forth in any document properly filed with the clerk of the court of common pleas by the public agency. In all other cases, the court shall fix a time, within twenty days from the last date that the answer could have been filed, for the assessment of compensation by a jury.

(B)(1) When an answer is filed pursuant to section 163.08 of the Revised Code and any of the matters relating to the right to make the appropriation, the inability of the parties to agree, or the necessity for the appropriation are specifically denied in the manner provided in that section, the court shall set a day, not less than five or more than fifteen days from the date the answer was filed, to hear those matters. Upon those matters, the burden of proof is upon the agency by a preponderance of the evidence except as follows:

(a) A resolution or ordinance of the governing or controlling body, council, or board of the agency declaring the necessity for the appropriation creates a rebuttable presumption of the necessity for the appropriation if the agency is not appropriating the property because it is a blighted parcel or part of a blighted area or slum.

(b) The 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.

(c) Approval by a state or federal regulatory authority of an appropriation by a public utility or common carrier creates an irrebuttable presumption of the necessity for the appropriation.

(2) Subject to the irrebuttable presumption in division (B)(1)(c) of this section, only the judge may determine the necessity of the appropriation. If, as to any or all of the property or other interests sought to be appropriated, the court determines the matters in favor of the agency, the court shall set a time for the assessment of compensation by the jury not less than sixty days from the date of the journalization of that determination, subject to the right of the parties to request mediation under section 163.051 of the Revised Code and the right of the owner to an immediate appeal under division (B)(3) of this section. Except as provided in division (B)(3) of this section, an order of the court in favor of the agency on any of the matters or on qualification under section 163.06 of the Revised Code shall not be a final order for purposes of appeal. An order of the court against the agency on any of the matters or on the question of qualification under section 163.06 of the Revised Code shall be a final order for purposes of appeal. If a public agency has taken possession prior to such an order and such an order, after any appeal, is against the agency on any of the matters, the agency shall restore the property to the owner in its original condition or respond in damages, which may include the items set forth in division (A)(2) of section 163.21 of the Revised Code, recoverable by civil action, to which the state consents.

(3) An owner has a right to an immediate appeal if the order of the court is in favor of the agency in any of the matters the owner denied in the answer, unless the agency is appropriating property in time of war or other public exigency imperatively requiring its immediate seizure, for the purpose of making or repairing roads which shall be open to the public without charge, for the purpose of implementing rail service under Chapter 4981. of the Revised Code, or under section 307.08, 504.19, 6101.181, 6115.221, 6117.39, or 6119.11 of the Revised Code or by a public utility owned and operated by a municipal corporation as the result of a public exigency.

(C) When an answer is filed pursuant to section 163.08 of the Revised Code, and none of the matters set forth in division (B) of this section is specifically denied, the court shall fix a time within twenty days from the date the answer was filed for the assessment of compensation by a jury.

(D) If answers are filed pursuant to divisions (B) and (C) of this section, or an answer is filed on behalf of fewer than all the named owners, the court shall set the hearing or hearings at such times as are reasonable under all the circumstances, but in no event later than twenty days after the issues are joined as to all necessary parties or twenty days after rule therefor, whichever is earlier.

(E) The court, with the consent of the parties, may order two or more cases to be consolidated and tried together, but the rights of each owner to compensation, damages, or both shall be separately determined by the jury in its verdict.

(F) If an answer is filed under section 163.08 of the Revised Code with respect to the value of property, the trier of fact shall determine that value based on the evidence presented, with neither party having the burden of proof with respect to that value.

(G) If the court determines the matter in the favor of the owner as to the necessity of the appropriation or whether the use for which the agency seeks to appropriate the property is a public use, in a final, unappealable order, the court shall award the owner reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and costs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 116 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 194 (Ohio 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 194 (Ohio 2021). · cites it 82× “Prior to the 2007 amendments, R.C. 163.09 and 163.19 precluded immediate appellate review of an order in favor of the appropriating agency on various preliminary issues, including the necessity of the taking.”
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 2714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 57× “{¶9} The trial court held a consolidated hearing under R.C. 163.09 to determine any matters relating to: (1) the right to make the appropriation, (2) the inability of the parties to agree, or (3) the necessity for the appropriation.”
Columbia Gas v. Bailey, 2023 Ohio 1245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 32× “{¶14} On October 22, 2021, the respondents filed motions for a hearing under R.C. 163.09. Because the ODA did “not interpret the proposed utility easement as violating the existing agricultural easement,” it filed a motion on November 10, 2021 requesting to be excused from the…”
State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co., 2022 Ohio 4345 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 12× “{¶ 12} In its answer, the country club asserted that the History Connection had failed to satisfy certain statutory prerequisites to filing an appropriation action, which triggered an initial hearing process under R.C. 163.09(B). During the four- day hearing, the parties largely…”
Columbia Gas v. Phelps Preferred Invests., L.L.C., 2022 Ohio 2540 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 26× “) As a result, the trial court concluded that Columbia Gas’ petition should be dismissed pursuant to R.C. 163.09([G]). {¶8} From this decision, Columbia Gas appeals, asserting the following assignments of error.”
State ex rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common Pleas, 603 N.E.2d 1005 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 11× “In essence, they argue that Horwitz would have been entitled to a hearing under R.C. 163.09, but that Judge Corrigan’s ruling extinguished this right.”
Ohio Power Co. v. Diller, 247 N.E.2d 774 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 26× “” Section 163.09 (B), Revised Code, the constitutionality of which is challenged, provides, in part, as follows: “ * * * Upon such questions, the burden of proof is upon the owner.”
Mill Creek Metro. Dist. Bd. of Commrs. v. Less, 2022 Ohio 1289 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 22× “The Park District further requested that the trial court “fix a time * * * for the assessment of compensation by a jury, pursuant to R.C. 163.09.” {¶7} Less filed answers in both cases, followed by motions for judgment on the pleadings in both cases.”
State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co., 2020 Ohio 276 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “02(B)(7) includes as a final appealable order *** “[a]n order in an appropriation proceeding that may be appealed pursuant to division (B)(3) of section 163.09 of the Revised Code.” In turn, R.”
Schlegel v. Sweeney, 2022 Ohio 3841 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 3× “Schlegel contends that because the anti-appropriation provision was not in effect when he filed his answer, he was unable to raise his anti-appropriation-provision argument in a hearing on the agency’s right to make the appropriation and, thus, has lost his right to appeal the…”
Mynes v. Brooks, 2009 Ohio 5946 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 4× “{¶ k} “(7) An order in an appropriation proceeding that may be appealed pursuant to division (B)(3) of section 163.09 of the Revised Code.” 2. {¶ a} Civ.”
Ohio Power Co. v. Duff, 2020 Ohio 4628 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “R.C. 163.09, the statutory provision governing such hearings, provides that when a landowner files an answer to a petition for appropriation, the trial court "shall set a day, not less than five or more than fifteen days from the date was filed, to hear those matters.”
Show all 116 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(A) — 6 cases
City of Cincinnati v. Bossert Mach. Co., 243 N.E.2d 105 (Ohio 1968).
Wray v. Stvartak, 700 N.E.2d 347 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
City of Middletown v. Campbell, 486 N.E.2d 208 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
Cleveland Bakers Union Local No. 19 Pension Fund v. State, 443 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981).
Bd. of Educ. v. Dudra, 249 N.E.2d 832 (Ohio 1969).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(B) — 37 cases
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 194 (Ohio 2021). “Prior to the 2007 amendments, R.C. 163.09 and 163.19 precluded immediate appellate review of an order in favor of the appropriating agency on various preliminary issues, including the necessity of the taking.”
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 2714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶9} The trial court held a consolidated hearing under R.C. 163.09 to determine any matters relating to: (1) the right to make the appropriation, (2) the inability of the parties to agree, or (3) the necessity for the appropriation.”
State ex rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common Pleas, 603 N.E.2d 1005 (Ohio 1992). “In essence, they argue that Horwitz would have been entitled to a hearing under R.C. 163.09, but that Judge Corrigan’s ruling extinguished this right.”
City of Norwood v. Horney, 853 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 2006).
State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co., 2022 Ohio 4345 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 12} In its answer, the country club asserted that the History Connection had failed to satisfy certain statutory prerequisites to filing an appropriation action, which triggered an initial hearing process under R.C. 163.09(B). During the four- day hearing, the parties largely…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(B)(1) — 14 cases
State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co., 2022 Ohio 4345 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 12} In its answer, the country club asserted that the History Connection had failed to satisfy certain statutory prerequisites to filing an appropriation action, which triggered an initial hearing process under R.C. 163.09(B). During the four- day hearing, the parties largely…”
Columbia Gas v. Bailey, 2023 Ohio 1245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶14} On October 22, 2021, the respondents filed motions for a hearing under R.C. 163.09. Because the ODA did “not interpret the proposed utility easement as violating the existing agricultural easement,” it filed a motion on November 10, 2021 requesting to be excused from the…”
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 194 (Ohio 2021). “Prior to the 2007 amendments, R.C. 163.09 and 163.19 precluded immediate appellate review of an order in favor of the appropriating agency on various preliminary issues, including the necessity of the taking.”
Mill Creek Metro. Dist. Bd. of Commrs. v. Less, 2022 Ohio 1289 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “The Park District further requested that the trial court “fix a time * * * for the assessment of compensation by a jury, pursuant to R.C. 163.09.” {¶7} Less filed answers in both cases, followed by motions for judgment on the pleadings in both cases.”
Schlegel v. Sweeney, 2022 Ohio 3841 (Ohio 2022). “Schlegel contends that because the anti-appropriation provision was not in effect when he filed his answer, he was unable to raise his anti-appropriation-provision argument in a hearing on the agency’s right to make the appropriation and, thus, has lost his right to appeal the…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(B)(1)(a) — 14 cases
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 2714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶9} The trial court held a consolidated hearing under R.C. 163.09 to determine any matters relating to: (1) the right to make the appropriation, (2) the inability of the parties to agree, or (3) the necessity for the appropriation.”
State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co., 2022 Ohio 4345 (Ohio 2022). “{¶ 12} In its answer, the country club asserted that the History Connection had failed to satisfy certain statutory prerequisites to filing an appropriation action, which triggered an initial hearing process under R.C. 163.09(B). During the four- day hearing, the parties largely…”
Columbia Gas v. Bailey, 2023 Ohio 1245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶14} On October 22, 2021, the respondents filed motions for a hearing under R.C. 163.09. Because the ODA did “not interpret the proposed utility easement as violating the existing agricultural easement,” it filed a motion on November 10, 2021 requesting to be excused from the…”
John Boerschig v. Trans-Pecos Pipeline, L.L.C., 872 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2017).
State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co., 2020 Ohio 276 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “02(B)(7) includes as a final appealable order *** “[a]n order in an appropriation proceeding that may be appealed pursuant to division (B)(3) of section 163.09 of the Revised Code.” In turn, R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(B)(1)(b) — 8 cases
Sunoco Pipeline L.P. v. Teter, 2016 Ohio 7073 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
Columbia Gas v. Bailey, 2023 Ohio 1245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶14} On October 22, 2021, the respondents filed motions for a hearing under R.C. 163.09. Because the ODA did “not interpret the proposed utility easement as violating the existing agricultural easement,” it filed a motion on November 10, 2021 requesting to be excused from the…”
Columbia Gas v. Phelps Preferred Invests., L.L.C., 2022 Ohio 2540 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “) As a result, the trial court concluded that Columbia Gas’ petition should be dismissed pursuant to R.C. 163.09([G]). {¶8} From this decision, Columbia Gas appeals, asserting the following assignments of error.”
Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. v. Holloway, 2023 Ohio 4257 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2024 Ohio 3364 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(B)(1)(c) — 5 cases
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 194 (Ohio 2021). “Prior to the 2007 amendments, R.C. 163.09 and 163.19 precluded immediate appellate review of an order in favor of the appropriating agency on various preliminary issues, including the necessity of the taking.”
Columbia Gas v. Bailey, 2023 Ohio 1245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶14} On October 22, 2021, the respondents filed motions for a hearing under R.C. 163.09. Because the ODA did “not interpret the proposed utility easement as violating the existing agricultural easement,” it filed a motion on November 10, 2021 requesting to be excused from the…”
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 2714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶9} The trial court held a consolidated hearing under R.C. 163.09 to determine any matters relating to: (1) the right to make the appropriation, (2) the inability of the parties to agree, or (3) the necessity for the appropriation.”
Columbia Gas v. Phelps Preferred Invests., L.L.C., 2022 Ohio 2540 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “) As a result, the trial court concluded that Columbia Gas’ petition should be dismissed pursuant to R.C. 163.09([G]). {¶8} From this decision, Columbia Gas appeals, asserting the following assignments of error.”
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2024 Ohio 3364 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(B)(2) — 9 cases
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 194 (Ohio 2021). “Prior to the 2007 amendments, R.C. 163.09 and 163.19 precluded immediate appellate review of an order in favor of the appropriating agency on various preliminary issues, including the necessity of the taking.”
Columbia Gas v. Phelps Preferred Invests., L.L.C., 2022 Ohio 2540 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “) As a result, the trial court concluded that Columbia Gas’ petition should be dismissed pursuant to R.C. 163.09([G]). {¶8} From this decision, Columbia Gas appeals, asserting the following assignments of error.”
Columbia Gas v. Bailey, 2023 Ohio 1245 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “{¶14} On October 22, 2021, the respondents filed motions for a hearing under R.C. 163.09. Because the ODA did “not interpret the proposed utility easement as violating the existing agricultural easement,” it filed a motion on November 10, 2021 requesting to be excused from the…”
Schlegel v. Sweeney, 2022 Ohio 3841 (Ohio 2022). “Schlegel contends that because the anti-appropriation provision was not in effect when he filed his answer, he was unable to raise his anti-appropriation-provision argument in a hearing on the agency’s right to make the appropriation and, thus, has lost his right to appeal the…”
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 2714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶9} The trial court held a consolidated hearing under R.C. 163.09 to determine any matters relating to: (1) the right to make the appropriation, (2) the inability of the parties to agree, or (3) the necessity for the appropriation.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(B)(3) — 14 cases
State ex rel. Bohlen v. Halliday (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 194 (Ohio 2021). “Prior to the 2007 amendments, R.C. 163.09 and 163.19 precluded immediate appellate review of an order in favor of the appropriating agency on various preliminary issues, including the necessity of the taking.”
Mill Creek Metro. Dist. Bd. of Commrs. v. Less, 2022 Ohio 1289 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “The Park District further requested that the trial court “fix a time * * * for the assessment of compensation by a jury, pursuant to R.C. 163.09.” {¶7} Less filed answers in both cases, followed by motions for judgment on the pleadings in both cases.”
In re H.F., 2008 Ohio 6810 (Ohio 2008).
State ex rel. Ohio History Connection v. Moundbuilders Country Club Co., 2020 Ohio 276 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “02(B)(7) includes as a final appealable order *** “[a]n order in an appropriation proceeding that may be appealed pursuant to division (B)(3) of section 163.09 of the Revised Code.” In turn, R.”
Columbus Mun. Corp. v. Wiltshire Capital Partners, LP, 2024 Ohio 2180 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(C) — 6 cases
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 2714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶9} The trial court held a consolidated hearing under R.C. 163.09 to determine any matters relating to: (1) the right to make the appropriation, (2) the inability of the parties to agree, or (3) the necessity for the appropriation.”
Ohio River Pipe Line, LLC v. Gutheil, 761 N.E.2d 633 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
Ohio Edison Co. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 486 N.E.2d 103 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
Wray v. Allied Indus. Dev. Corp., 741 N.E.2d 238 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
Mill Creek Metro. Park Dist. Bd. of Commrs. v. Hough, 2023 Ohio 3426 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(E) — 2 cases
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 2714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶9} The trial court held a consolidated hearing under R.C. 163.09 to determine any matters relating to: (1) the right to make the appropriation, (2) the inability of the parties to agree, or (3) the necessity for the appropriation.”
Putnam Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Weis, 2019 Ohio 3720 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(F) — 1 case
N. Canton v. Julius Brown, L.L.C., 2024 Ohio 5881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(G) — 5 cases
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021 Ohio 2714 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “{¶9} The trial court held a consolidated hearing under R.C. 163.09 to determine any matters relating to: (1) the right to make the appropriation, (2) the inability of the parties to agree, or (3) the necessity for the appropriation.”
Canton v. Irwin, 2012 Ohio 344 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
Columbia Gas v. Phelps Preferred Invests., L.L.C., 2022 Ohio 2540 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “) As a result, the trial court concluded that Columbia Gas’ petition should be dismissed pursuant to R.C. 163.09([G]). {¶8} From this decision, Columbia Gas appeals, asserting the following assignments of error.”
State ex rel. New Wen, Inc. v. Marchbanks (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 4865 (Ohio 2020).
Booth v. Copeco, Inc., 2019 Ohio 5361 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 163.09(b) — 1 case
City of Englewood v. Miami Valley Lighting, L.L.C., 911 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.