Eminent Domain
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution commonly
—
referred to as the “Takings Clause”—forbids the taking of
private property for a public use without just compensation.
The Ohio Constitution contains similar protections in Art. 1,
Sec. 19, providing that private property should be held forever
inviolate but subservient to the public welfare.
“Appropriation,” “eminent domain,”
“condemnation” and “takings” are all
terms that are commonly used to refer to
the government’s ability to take private
property for public use. No matter what
it is called, protections of the U.S. and
Ohio Constitutions, as well as additional
safeguards in the Ohio Revised Code, will
apply in eminent domain situations.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court
and Ohio Supreme Court cases
have reshaped eminent domain. In
the ground breaking Kelo v. New
London decision, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that economic benefit or
development satisfies the public-use
requirement in the U.S. Constitution,
and therefore private property could
be taken by the government to be used
for nongovernmental (i.e. private)
development without violating the
Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution.124
Shortly thereafter, the Ohio Supreme
Court ruled in Norwood v. Horney that
economic development alone does not
satisfy the public-use requirements under
the Ohio Constitution, and therefore
economic development may not be the
sole reason for taking property for private
development in Ohio.125 Following both
court cases, the Ohio General Assembly
overhauled the eminent domain laws
setting specific procedures for the
appropriation of property and establishing
additional safeguards against the taking of
property for private development.
124
125
25
Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469
(2005)
Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St. 3d 353
(2006)