Regulatory takings claim not established.
The Supreme Court of Ohio considered a case where a property owner asked the courts to require commencement of appropriation proceedings based on an alleged regulatory taking.  The case is State ex rel. Gilmour Realty, Inc. v. Mayfield Hts., 122 Ohio St.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-2871.  Gilmour bears the burden to show that writ of mandamus is merited because a “clear legal right to compel the city and its planning commission to commence appropriation, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the city and planning commission to institute that action, and the lack of an adequate remedy for Gilmour.” State ex rel. Shelly Materials, Inc. v. Clark Cty. Bd. Of Commrs., 115 Ohio St.3d 337, 2007-Ohio-5022.  The Court found that the rezoning by the city, which was the “challenged governmental action,” did not cause “substantial individualized harm.” Penn. Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978), 438 U.S. 104,125, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631.  The case of Penn. Cent. set forth the requirements of the burden of proof:  (1) the economic impact of the regulation on Gilmour (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the company’s distinct investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the government action.  Id. 438 U.S. at 124.  The Court examined the evidence in detail to determine that Gilmour had moved its business for reasons other than the rezoning of the property in question.  Therefore, the Court agreed with the lower court that the parties failed to raise a genuine issue to be tried before the courts. 
Last Updated ( Thursday, 25 March 2010 11:55 )