Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State ex rel. Doner v. Zehringer (Slip Opinion)
Citations: 2014 Ohio 2102; 139 Ohio St. 3d 314; 11 N.E.3d 1152Docket: 2009-1292
Court: Ohio Supreme Court; May 21, 2014; Ohio; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The opinion, designated as State ex rel. Doner v. Zehringer, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2102, is currently subject to formal revision and may be cited before its publication in the Ohio Official Reports. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied the relators' request to hold the respondents, specifically the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), in contempt concerning ongoing flooding disputes stemming from a 1997 spillway construction at Grand Lake St. Marys. The court reviewed the relators' motion for contempt and mediation, noting ODNR's assurances of adequate funding to compensate affected landowners and its ability to expedite trial proceedings. The case marks the third interaction with the court regarding this matter, following a 2011 ruling that recognized a taking of property and mandated ODNR to initiate appropriation proceedings. Prior proceedings revealed that ODNR was held in contempt for delays in these proceedings, leading to a court order in early 2014 requiring timely completion of appraisals and the filing of appropriation cases. The court denied the relators' request for attorney fees and fines related to these proceedings. The 2003-flood-level cases refer to specific parcels of land affected by flooding, with established taking levels based on the 2003 flood. Appraisals were ordered for parcels affected by the 2003 flood, as the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) indicated that surveys had been completed to determine the extent of the taking for those cases. For 20 additional parcels not impacted by the flood, the state was instructed to ascertain the owners' rights due to the absence of established taking. Relators returned to court with a contempt motion, claiming that the state had abandoned the 2003 flood level as the basis for the taking's extent. During a 2012 proceeding, the state had previously asserted that the 2003 flood level defined the extent for the affected parcels. ODNR claimed progress in surveying the affected properties, stating that the survey work was nearly complete. By the contempt motion hearing, ODNR confirmed the completion of surveys for properties within the flood level to delineate the taking's extent. The court had not determined the specific extent of flowage easements for each parcel but had directed the Mercer County Common Pleas Court to resolve these issues based on data from the Mercer County Engineer and other measurements. Earlier rulings indicated that a detailed survey and legal description were necessary for compensation determinations. In discussions during the contempt motion, ODNR's counsel detailed the process for managing appropriation cases, emphasizing the importance of surveying to establish the taking's extent. Counsel noted that initial surveys were needed to define the boundaries between flowage easements and unencumbered properties. ODNR confirmed that its surveys were based on the 2003 flood level, which had been previously established in earlier litigation. Ultimately, ODNR's statements confirmed the completion of surveys and the establishment of the taking's extent for properties affected by the 2003 flood. The counsel explained to Justice O'Donnell that the 20 parcels in the declaratory-judgment cases had not been surveyed due to the absence of a determined extent of taking, unlike the established 2003 flood-level cases. The flood level, determined by the Mercer County Common Pleas Court, was based on the 2003 flood, establishing the extent of the taking. For parcels above this flood level, surveys were deemed unnecessary. The court had ordered appraisals for the 2003-flood-level cases after the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) assured that the necessary surveys had been completed, allowing for appropriation proceedings to proceed. The court set an aggressive timeline based on this representation. There remains an intent for efficient resolution of the relators' claims, with indications that the Mercer County Common Pleas Court possesses a thorough understanding of the legal and factual issues raised by ODNR, making it the appropriate venue for a timely resolution. Justice O'Neill concurred with this assessment. The representation for the relators was provided by Vorys, Sater, Seymour, Pease, L.L.P., while respondents were represented by Frost Brown Todd, L.L.C.