Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 163
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 163.14 (2026)

Determination of ownership rights

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 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) In appropriation proceedings the jury shall be sworn to impartially assess the compensation and damages, if any, without deductions for general benefits as to the property of the owner.

(B) The jury, in its verdict, shall assess the compensation for the property appropriated and damages, if any, to the residue, to be paid to the owners. When a building or other structure is on the property appropriated or when a building or other structure is situated partly upon the land appropriated and partly upon adjoining land so that the structure cannot be divided upon the line between such lands without manifest injury thereto, the jury, in assessing compensation to any owner of the land, shall assess the value thereof, as part of the compensation. The title to said structure shall vest in the agency which shall have the right to enter upon the adjoining land upon which any part of the structure is located for the purpose of removing said structure therefrom, after deposit in accordance with the verdict. Such removal shall be made within ninety days after taking title to the property appropriated; provided, that the court may extend removal time upon such conditions as the court requires.

(C) The jury, in its verdict, shall assess compensation to the owner of a business conducted on the property taken for loss of goodwill if the owner proves both of the following:

(1) The loss is caused by the taking of the property;

(2) The loss cannot reasonably be prevented by relocation of the business or by taking steps and adopting procedures that a reasonably prudent person would take and adopt in preserving the goodwill.

Compensation for loss of goodwill shall not be included in payments made under section 163.53 of the Revised Code, shall not be duplicated in any compensation otherwise awarded to the owner, shall not exceed ten thousand dollars, and shall not be awarded in appropriations of less than the entirety of the business property.

(D) The verdict shall be signed by at least three-fourths of the members of the jury.

(E) If a jury is discharged without rendering a verdict, another shall be impaneled at the earliest convenient time and shall make the inquiry and assessment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021-Ohio-2714, 176 N.E.3d 778.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ohio Power Co. v. Burns, 2021-Ohio-2714, 176 N.E.3d 778. · cites it 8× “is the jury trial on compensation under R.C. 163.14; Landowners’ motion was timely.”
City of Hilliard v. First Indus., L.P., 846 N.E.2d 559 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2005). · cites it 4× “{¶ 8} In an appropriation case, a landowner is entitled to compensation for the property actually taken, as well as damages for injury to the property that remains after the taking, i.”
Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Astorhurst Land Co., 480 N.E.2d 794 (Ohio 1985). “R.C. 163.14 and Civ. R. 48 require a three-fourths majority verdict (i.”
State ex rel. Horwitz v. Court of Common Pleas, 603 N.E.2d 1005 (Ohio 1992). “09 are decided by the trial court, a jury assesses compensation pursuant to R.C. 163.14, and a journal entry reflecting both determinations is entered pursuant to R.”
Wray v. Stvartak, 700 N.E.2d 347 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1997). “Pursuant to R.C. 163.14, the jury must determine separately the value of the land taken and damages to the residue.”
City of Columbus v. Farm Bureau Coop. Ass'n, 273 N.E.2d 888 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1971). · cites it 2× “The authorities relied upon by the trial court in its decision to exclude the expert testimony proferred [sic] by appellant were not appropriation cases and should not control the admission of evidence in the instant proceeding, especially in light of new Section 163.14, Revised…”
Hurst v. Starr, 607 N.E.2d 1155 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1992). “14 is the statute which provides compensation to landowners for property permanently appropriated by a public agency pursuant to its power of eminent domain, as well as money damages for consequential injury to their remaining property, i.e., the residue.”
Wray v. Deters, 675 N.E.2d 881 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1996). · cites it 2× “The director asserts that R.C. 163.14 requires triers of fact to separate *112 ly assess compensation for property appropriated and damages to the residue.”
Maumee Watershed Conservancy Dist. v. Buescher, 2017-Ohio-9086. · cites it 5× “More importantly, R.C. 163.14 is silent as to the requirement that a “before and after” appraisal must be completed prior to the filing of a petition.”
Wray v. Fitch, 642 N.E.2d 63 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1994). “However, there was no evidence that there were no other means of ingress and egress to the Fitches’ property or that the guardrail created a substantial, material or unreasonable interference with physical access to or from the property.”
Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. McNamara, 2011-Ohio-3066. “” R.C. 163.14. In other words, a property owner will be compensated for the land taken and for damage to the land not taken.”
Dept. of Nat. Resources v. Ebbing, 2015-Ohio-471, 28 N.E.3d 682. “R.C. 163.14; see also Wray v. Fitch, 95 Ohio App.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 163.14(A): 1 case
Maumee Watershed Conservancy Dist. v. Buescher, 2017-Ohio-9086. “More importantly, R.C. 163.14 is silent as to the requirement that a “before and after” appraisal must be completed prior to the filing of a petition.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 163.14(B): 5 cases
MacConnell v. Dayton, 2013-Ohio-3651.
Maumee Watershed Conservancy Dist. v. Buescher, 2017-Ohio-9086. “More importantly, R.C. 163.14 is silent as to the requirement that a “before and after” appraisal must be completed prior to the filing of a petition.”
N. Canton v. Julius Brown, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-5881.
Marchbanks v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2024-Ohio-5876.
N. Ridgeville v. Standen, 2026-Ohio-2234.
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.