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]References
[edit]- ^ Columbus Dispatch:Score One for Ohio Property Owners [dead link]
- ^ Recent Case: Ohio Supreme Court Holds That Economic Development Cannot by Itself Satisfy the Public Use Limitation of the Ohio Constitution Archived November 7, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 643 (2006).
- ^ a b City of Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006).
- ^ Supreme Court of Ohio Archived October 31, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
External links
[edit]Text of City of Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St.3d 353 (2006) is available from: Google Scholar Leagle