Norwood, Ohio v. Horney
Encyclopedia
Norwood, Ohio v. Horney 110 Ohio St.3d 353
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. 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.
The court found unanimously for the homeowners. Justice Maureen O'Connor
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.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
was a case brought before the Ohio Supreme Court in 2006. The case came upon the heels of Kelo v. City of New London
Kelo v. City of New London
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development...
, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that commercial development justified the use of eminent domain
Eminent domain
Eminent domain , compulsory purchase , resumption/compulsory acquisition , or expropriation is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent...
. Kelo had involved the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
, 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. 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.
The court found unanimously for the homeowners. Justice Maureen O'Connor
Maureen O'Connor
Maureen O'Connor is an American jurist and the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Prior to this, O'Connor served as an Associate Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court and as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio under Gov. Bob Taft...
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.