## Facts

- The City of Norwood sought to condemn roughly 70 homes and businesses in a stable residential area for a privately driven mixed-use redevelopment project known as the Rookwood Exchange.
- Norwood relied on its “Edwards Road Corridor Urban Renewal Plan” and a consultant report characterizing the area as “deteriorating,” a designation that enabled condemnation under local law.
- The report treated factors such as increasing traffic, “diversity of ownership,” and smaller parcel sizes as signs of deterioration, even though the neighborhood was not traditionally blighted.
- Property owners, including Joseph P. Horney and Carl and Joy Gamble, challenged the takings as unconstitutional under Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution.
- The trial court upheld the takings based on the “deteriorating” finding; compensation proceedings followed, and Norwood obtained title after depositing compensation under R.C. 163.19.
- The court of appeals affirmed, deferring to the municipality’s determination of public use.
- The Ohio Supreme Court consolidated related cases to review the constitutional limits on economic-development takings, the “deteriorating area” standard, and R.C. 163.19’s anti-injunction provision.

## Issues

1. Whether an appropriation justified solely by anticipated economic benefits (tax revenue, jobs) satisfies “public use” under Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution.
2. Whether the “deteriorating area” designation used to authorize eminent domain is unconstitutionally vague.
3. What level of judicial scrutiny applies to statutes and municipal enactments regulating eminent domain.
4. Whether the portion of R.C. 163.19 barring courts from enjoining a taking after deposit of compensation but before appellate review violates separation of powers.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court ruled unanimously for the property owners and reversed the judgments allowing the condemnations.
- The court held that economic benefit to the community, standing alone, does not satisfy Ohio’s public-use requirement when it is the sole asserted public benefit.
- The court held that “deteriorating area,” as a standard authorizing appropriation, is void for vagueness and unconstitutional.
- The court required heightened scrutiny for judicial review of statutes and municipal enactments regulating eminent-domain power.
- The court held unconstitutional (but severable) the portion of R.C. 163.19 that prohibited courts from enjoining the taking and use of property after compensation was deposited but before appellate review.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution imposes limits on eminent domain that may be stricter than the federal constitutional minimum.
- Anticipated economic development effects may be considered, but economic gain alone is not “public use” under Ohio’s Constitution when it is the only asserted public benefit.
- The void-for-vagueness doctrine applies to laws and standards that regulate the exercise of eminent-domain authority; condemnation predicates must be defined with sufficient clarity to restrain arbitrary enforcement.
- Courts must apply heightened scrutiny to eminent-domain statutes and municipal enactments rather than treating legislative declarations of public use as effectively conclusive.
- A statute that removes a court’s ability to enjoin a taking before appellate review intrudes on the judiciary’s authority and violates separation of powers; unconstitutional portions may be severed if the remainder can operate independently.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court invalidated Norwood’s attempted condemnations for private redevelopment, holding that economic benefit alone is not a constitutionally sufficient public use, that “deteriorating area” is an unconstitutionally vague basis for taking property, that heightened scrutiny governs eminent-domain review, and that courts cannot be barred from issuing pre-appeal injunctions by the challenged portion of R.C. 163.19.


City of Norwood v. Horney, 110 Ohio St. 3d 353 (Ohio 2006)