Supreme Court of Ohio Decides Eminent Domain Case
Cite as Norwood v. Horney, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2006-Ohio-3799.]
(Nos. 2005-0227 and 2005-0228 — Submitted September 28, 2005 — Decided
July 26, 2006.)
(Nos. 2005-1210 and 2005-1211 — Submitted January 11, 2006 — Decided July
APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County,
Nos. C-040683 and C-040783 (January 19, 2005).
APPEALS from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, Nos. C-040683 and C-
040783 (May 20, 2005), 161 Ohio App.3d 316, 2005-Ohio-2448.
In the absence of other public benefit, the fact that an appropriation of property
will provide an economic benefit to the community does not satisfy the
public-use requirement of Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution —
The void-for-vagueness doctrine applies to statutes that regulate the use of
eminent-domain powers — Courts shall apply heightened scrutiny when
reviewing statutes that regulate the use of eminent-domain powers — The
term “deteriorating area” as a standard for an appropriation of property
is unconstitutional — R.C. 163.19 is unconstitutional in part.