## Facts

- R.T.G., Inc. (RTG) conducted surface coal mining on multiple tracts in eastern Ohio, including parcels it owned in fee and parcels where it owned or leased coal rights only.
- The Village of Pleasant City sought designation of land as “unsuitable for mining” (UFM) under Ohio Rev. Code § 1513.073, claiming mining threatened the aquifer supplying the village’s wells.
- ODNR initially designated a smaller area as UFM, the Reclamation Board of Review expanded it, and a court of appeals required broader protection.
- ODNR ultimately designated 833 acres as UFM, including land over coal in which RTG held coal-only interests and coal under tracts RTG owned in fee.
- The UFM designation prohibited surface coal mining within the area; RTG alleged the prohibition destroyed the economic use of its coal interests.
- RTG and certain landowners filed a mandamus action seeking to compel the State to initiate appropriation (inverse condemnation) proceedings for an alleged taking without just compensation.

## Issues

1. Whether a UFM designation that bars surface coal mining within the affected area effects a categorical regulatory taking of RTG’s coal interests requiring compensation.
2. How to define the relevant property interest for takings analysis (coal interests within the UFM area versus a broader “parcel as a whole” view).
3. Whether the State avoided compensation by asserting the restriction prevented a nuisance or reflected limits already imposed by background principles of property and nuisance law.
4. Whether a successful relator in a takings-based mandamus action may recover attorney fees and litigation expenses.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held the UFM designation resulted in a compensable taking of RTG’s coal interests within the UFM area, including coal-only tracts and coal under tracts RTG owned in fee.
- The court treated the coal interests in the designated area as the relevant property interest for the categorical-takings inquiry, rejecting the State’s attempt to dilute the deprivation through broader aggregation.
- The court rejected the State’s nuisance/background-principles defense because the State did not establish that the prohibited mining would have been unlawful or a common-law nuisance under preexisting rules.
- The court held RTG was entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses in the mandamus action.
- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A regulation that denies all economically beneficial use of a discrete property interest may constitute a categorical regulatory taking requiring just compensation, unless the prohibited use was already barred by background principles of property or nuisance law.
- Mineral interests may be treated as distinct property interests for takings analysis when the regulation targets and eliminates the economic use of that mineral estate within a defined area.
- Environmental and public-health objectives may justify regulation, but a valid public purpose does not itself eliminate the duty to pay compensation when private property is taken.
- In Ohio, mandamus may be used to compel the State to commence appropriation proceedings for a regulatory taking, and a successful relator may recover reasonable attorney fees and related litigation expenses in appropriate circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that ODNR’s UFM designation, which entirely barred surface coal mining in the designated area, effected a categorical taking of RTG’s coal interests (including coal under fee-owned land), rejected a nuisance-based no-compensation defense on the record presented, and permitted recovery of attorney fees and expenses in the mandamus action compelling appropriation proceedings.


State ex rel. R.T.G., Inc. v. State, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1 (Ohio 2002)