City of Norwood v. Horney
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (July 2016) |
| City of Norwood v. Horney | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Full case name | City of Norwood v. Horney, et al. City of Norwood v. Gamble, et al. |
| Decided | July 26, 2006 |
| Citations | 110 Ohio St.3d 353; 2006-Ohio-3799 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | City of Norwood v. Horney, 2005-Ohio-2448, 161 Ohio App. 3d 316, 830 N.E.2d 381 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Thomas J. Moyer, Maureen O'Connor, Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger, James A. Brogan |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | O'Connor |
City of Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006), was a case brought before the Ohio Supreme Court in 2006. The case came upon the heels of Kelo v. City of New London, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that commercial development justified the use of eminent domain. Kelo had involved the United States Constitution, while the issue in Norwood was the specific limitations of the Ohio State Constitution.
In the Norwood case, the city wished to seize about seventy homes and businesses to make way for private development, including retail, offices, and condominiums.[1] Homeowners Joe Horney, Carl and Joy Gamble, and Matthew and Sanae Burton, filed three separate cases to stop the seizure of their homes. Following appeals, these cases were combined into the Supreme Court case Norwood v. Horney.
In July 2006, the court found unanimously for the homeowners.[2][3] Justice Maureen O'Connor (later Chief Justice) wrote the majority opinion, which ruled that economic benefit alone was insufficient to satisfy the eminent domain statute of the Ohio Constitution; that an Ohio statute allowing for the use of eminent domain seizures in the case of "deteriorating areas" was void for vagueness; and that the rest of this statute should remain in force. It also specified for the Ohio courts a standard for reviewing statutes that regulate eminent domain powers.[3][4]
Original cases
[edit]These cases were originally tried in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Information about these cases is available from the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts by searching for the Case Numbers listed.
- CITY OF NORWOOD vs. JOSEPH P HORNEY (A 0308648)
- CARL GAMBLE vs. CITY OF NORWOOD (A 0307160)
- CITY OF NORWOOD vs. MATTHEW F BURTON (A 0308646)
These were then appealed to the Court of Appeals, First Appellate District of Ohio, Hamilton County, Ohio.
- Gamble v. Norwood, 2004-Ohio-4661 (C-040019) (Note: Horney is listed as an additional plaintiff here.)
- Norwood v. Burton, 164 Ohio App.3d 136, 2005-Ohio-5720 (C-050065, C-050070)
Note: there are many other first-instance and appeals cases that were combined together into this Supreme Court case; these are just the most notable ones.
References
[edit]- ^ Nash, James (July 27, 2006). "Score one for Ohio property owners: (Court: Land seizures can't be just for economic gain) / PROPERTY". Local/State. The Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, OH. pp. A1, A5. ISSN 1074-097X. EBSCOhost nf5scarlhr (2W62W61302818972). Gale A148729959. NewsBank 11323B3EA3C253D0. PressReader n/the-columbus-dispatch/20060727. ProQuest 394691917, 459879428. (Article sometimes provided via McClatchy-Tribune Business News published by Tribune Content Agency LLC.). Archived from the original on May 23, 2011. Retrieved November 26, 2024.
- ^ "Eminent Domain — Public Use — Ohio Supreme Court Holds That Economic Development Cannot by Itself Satisfy the Public Use Limitation of the Ohio Constitution. — City of Norwood v. Horney, 853 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 2006)" (PDF). Recent Cases. Harvard Law Review. 120 (2): 643–650. December 2006. ISSN 0017-811X. JSTOR 40042616. 120 Harv. L. Rev. 643. EBSCOhost 23463413/ssd3zbwlef. Gale A156486337. HeinOnline hlr120 665. Nexis Uni 4MJS-VN70-02BM-Y062-00000-00. Westlaw I17b884f08ca611dba2eba69ce80078b6. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 7, 2017.
- ^ a b Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353, 2006-Ohio-3799 (2006), archived from the original.
- ^ "Portion of Eminent Domain Law Unconstitutional, Norwood Taking for Development Overturned: (2005-0227, 2005-0228, 2005-1210, and 2005-1211. Norwood v. Horney, 2006-Ohio-3799. Hamilton App. Nos. C-040683 and C-040783, 161 Ohio App.3d 316, 2005-Ohio-2448. Judgments reversed. Moyer, C.J., Brogan, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur. James A. Brogan, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.)". Office of Public Information. Select Opinion Summaries / Supreme Court of Ohio Opinion Summaries. Columbus, Ohio: The Supreme Court of Ohio. July 26, 2006. Archived from the original on October 31, 2006.
External links
[edit]Text of City of Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) is available from: Google Scholar Leagle Nexis Uni Westlaw HeinOnline Supreme Court of Ohio (via Wayback Machine)