eminent domain
A landowner challenging the taking of land for a bikeway has lost in an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. The decision by the state’s highest court doesn’t address whether Mill Creek MetroParks may take the land for the bike trail, but instead gives the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court the go ahead to continue the eminent domain proceeding.
The landowner’s argument. Mill Creek MetroParks filed a case in 2019 to appropriate land from Edward Schlegel, who would not voluntarily consent to selling some of his land for the park district’s bike trail extension. Schlegel sought to have the case dismissed when the Ohio General Assembly included a provision in the state’s budget bill in 2021 intended to address landowner opposition to the Mill Creek MetroParks bike trail. The new provision prevents any park district in a county of between 220,000 and 240,000 people from using eminent domain for a “recreational trail” until July 1, 2026. Mahoning County falls within the population range.
Schlegel asked the Mahoning Court of Common Pleas to dismiss the Park District’s eminent domain proceeding against him based on the new law. But Common Pleas Court Judge Sweeney denied Schlegel’s request, stating that the new law did not apply because the legislature passed the law after the Park District filed Schlegal’s case. Schlegal then asked the Ohio Supreme Court for a “writ of prohibition” that would prevent Judge Sweeney from continuing with the eminent domain case.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning. In seeking a writ of prohibition, Schlegal had to demonstrate that the common pleas court exceeded its authority and that he had no remedy at law other than a writ of prohibition. The problem with Schlegel’s request, according to the Supreme Court, is that he did have an alternative and adequate remedy: an appeal. When the Mahoning County court issues a decision in the eminent domain proceeding, Schlegal has a right to appeal the decision. At that time, he could challenge the judge’s decision not to dismiss the case due to the new law.
Schlegel argued that the procedures for an eminent domain case prevented him from challenging the common pleas court’s refusal of his request to dismiss the case. An eminent domain proceeding has two parts: the first is a determination of whether the agency has the right to make an appropriation of property and if so, the second is to determine the amount of compensation due for the appropriation. Schlegel argued that because the new law became effective after the common pleas court determined the Park District had eminent domain authority, he lost his right to appeal that issue. Not so, according to the Supreme Court. Schlegel still has the right to appeal whether the park district may use eminent domain when the court issues its final judgment in the case regarding compensation. A writ of prohibition therefore is not warranted, the Court concluded.
What now? Schlegel’s eminent domain case will resume in the Mahoning County court. We can expect an appeal by Schlegel when the court determines the amount of compensation for the taking.
Another bike trail case is coming. In the meantime, the Ohio Supreme Court recently decided to review another case challenging the Mill Creek MetroParks bike trail. The Seventh District Court of Appeals issued a decision earlier this year in favor of a bike trail challenge by landowner Diane Less. The court held that the Park District lacked authority to use eminent domain against Less, basing its decision on the insufficiency of the resolutions the Park District passed when it decided to acquire land for the bike trail. Ohio law allows a park district to use eminent domain authority for two specific purposes: the conversion of forest reserves and the conservation of natural resources, and the appellate court determined that the Park District’s purpose for using eminent domain to extend the bike trail did not meet either of those purposes. The Park District appealed that decision and on September 14, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to review the decision. The Court will likely hear the case in 2023.
Read the Schlegel v. Sweeney opinion and the Mill Creek v Less opinion online in the Opinions section of the Ohio Supreme Court’s website.
Tags: eminent domain, Mill Creek MetroParks, bike trail, recreational trail
Comments: 0
An appeals court ruling now stands in the way of a bikeway project begun more than 27 years ago by the Mill Creek Metropolitan Park District (MetroParks) in Mahoning County. The Seventh District Court of Appeals recently ruled that MetroParks did not have the power of eminent domain when it attempted to acquire undeveloped stretches of the bikeway. Several landowners have challenged MetroPark’s use of eminent domain for the project over the years, but this is the first case to yield a positive outcome for landowners who have not wanted the bikeway on their properties. We take a closer look at the decision in today’s post.
The case
The court case began in 2019, when MetroParks offered landowner Diane Less $13,650 for a permanent easement for construction of the bikeway across her land. When the landowner did not agree to the conveyance, MetroParks filed an eminent domain proceeding in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. The landowner responded that MetroParks did not have authority to use eminent domain for the bikeway project and attempted to have the case dismissed through a summary judgment motion. The trial court found that MetroParks was authorized to appropriate the property for the bikeway and denied the motion, and the landowner appealed.
The appellate court began its review of the case by pointing out that whenever Ohio’s legislature grants the power of eminent domain to a subdivision of the state, that grant must be “strictly construed” and any doubts about the right must be resolved in favor of the property owner. An entity like a park district has eminent domain authority (also referred to as appropriation or takings) only when the Ohio legislature grants the power in statutory law. MetroParks relied on Ohio Revised Code 1545.11 as the grant of power to acquire the bikeway land by eminent domain. That statute states:
The board of park commissioners may acquire lands either within or without the park district for conversion into forest reserves and for the conservation of the natural resources of the state, including streams, lakes, submerged lands, and swamplands, and to those ends may create parks, parkways, forest reservations, and other reservations and afforest, develop, improve, protect, and promote the use of the same in such manner as the board deems conducive to the general welfare. Such lands may be acquired by such board, on behalf of said district, (1) by gift or devise, (2) by purchase for cash, by purchase by installment payments with or without a mortgage, by entering into lease-purchase agreements, by lease with or without option to purchase, or, (3) by appropriation.
The appeals court examined MetroParks’ purpose for acquiring the land for the bikeway to determine if it met either of the authorized purposes in the statute of “conversion into forest reserves” or “conservation of natural resources.” MetroParks explained that it established its purposes and the necessity of acquiring the bikeway land in two resolutions in 1993 and 2018. The first resolution stated that the “public interest demanded the construction of a bicycle path” and the second stated that the bikeway “will provide local and regional users with a safe, uniformly-designed, multi-use, off-road trail facility dedicated for public transportation and recreational purposes.”
According to the court, however, both resolutions failed to relate the necessity of the bikeway to the purposes in the statute of acquiring land “for conversion into forest reserves and for the conservation of the natural resources of the state.” The court noted other Ohio court decisions that do conclude that a bikeway meets the purpose of acquiring land for the “conservation of natural resources” when it “supplies a human need,” “contributes to the health, welfare, and benefit of the community” and is “essential for the well-being of such community and the proper enjoyment of its property.” But important to the landowner is the court’s statement that it disagrees with these principles, “especially when applied to a rural area where it appears the public need is speculative at best and the harm to the private property owners is great." Reminding us that a statutory grant of eminent domain authority must be strictly construed and interpreted to favor a property owner, the court stated that prior decisions characterizing any project that serves the public and contributes to the health and welfare of the community as “conservation of natural resources” for purposes of R.C. 1545.11 is “a bit of a stretch.”
A second point the court made in questioning whether a bikeway fits within the purposes of park district land acquisition outlined in R.C. 1545.11 is that a law enacted after that statute assigned Ohio’s Department of Natural Resources the duty to plan and develop recreational trails, along with the authority to appropriate land for recreational trails. The statute suggests that the state agency, not park districts, possesses the authority to use eminent domain to establish recreational trails and bikeways.
Despite its disagreement with the assumption that R.C. 1545.11 permits the acquisition of land for bikeways as the “conservation of natural resources,” the court reviewed the MetroParks resolutions to determine if the park’s purpose constituted the “conservation of natural resources.” Not surprisingly, the court concluded that the resolutions were completely devoid of any purposes that met the statute’s requirements. Creating a bikeway through an extensive acreage of family-owned farmland in a rural area does not constitute the purpose of acquiring land for “conservation of natural resources of the state,” the court stated. Nor does providing recreation automatically equate to the conservation of natural resources. The resolutions did not “indicate that the creation of this particular trail or bikeway is designed to promote the general health and welfare of the pubic, which we believe requires more than just a recreational purposes” and failed at “even remotely tying the creation of the bikeway to the conservation of natural resources.”
Lacking a required statutory purpose for acquiring the bikeway land, the court concluded that MetroParks abused its discretion in attempting to appropriate the landowner’s property. The appeals court instructed the Mahoning Court of Common Pleas to grant summary judgment not only in this case, but also for a second bikeway eminent domain case the landowner was a party to with MetroParks.
Now what?
A question now before MetroParks is whether it will ask the Ohio Supreme Court to review the decision of the Seventh District Court of Appeals. The park district board will meet on May 9 to discuss how it will proceed.
A continuing problem
The case highlights a recurring issue with the use of eminent domain for bike paths, as this is not the only legal issue MetroParks has faced in its mission to build its bikeway. Several other court cases have challenged the park’s eminent domain authority, though unsuccessful, and an amendment to last year’s budget bill included specific language that prohibits the use of eminent domain for recreational trails for five years in a county with a population between 220,000 and 240,00 people. Mahoning County falls within that population range. Recent attempts by Mahoning County legislators to enact laws that prohibit the use of eminent domain for recreational trails or give local governments the right to veto such actions have not made it through the Ohio General Assembly. The divisive issue is clearly one that requires a closer look by our legislators.
Read the case of Mill Creek Metro. Dist. Bd. of Commrs. v. Less here.
Tags: eminent domain, bikeways, recreational trails, Mill Creek MetroParks
Comments: 0
You may have been involved in or known someone that was involved in an eminent domain dispute with a utility company or other state agency. When the government tries to take an individual’s property, emotions are understandably heightened. In Ohio, state agencies and other specific entities – like a public utility company – can appropriate or “take” a person’s property, but only if the taking is necessary and for a public use. If the government or governmental agency does appropriate a landowner’s property, then the landowner is entitled to compensation for the taking.
In the case below, a group of landowners disputed a power company’s ability to appropriate their property and the ability of the power company to assume it is entitled to an appropriation simply because a project for public use was approved by state authorities. The landowners also sought to clarify when a landowner is entitled to recover the costs associated with defending their property interests against an attempted appropriation by the state or state agency.
Ohio Power Company v. Burns, et al.
In 2017, the Ohio Power Board of Directors (“Ohio Power Board”) gave initial approval for a project located in Marietta, Ohio to enhance the electric transmission network (the “Project”). The Project included miles of new transmission lines and required siting, rights of ways, and some property purchases. In 2018 the Ohio Siting Board (“Siting Board”) issued a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need for the Project. In 2019, the Project was given final approval by the Ohio Power Board.
After failed easement negotiations, the Ohio Power Company (Plaintiff) filed petitions for appropriation against several landowners (“Defendants”) to take easements on the Defendants’ property. As required by Ohio law, the trial court held a hearing on the appropriation petitions (the “Appropriation Proceedings”). Plaintiff argued that it currently possesses an easement across the property of each Defendant, but it was seeking to replace the existing easement with a new, wider easement for the Project. Plaintiff claimed that the new easements were necessary for a public good and that the Siting Board recognized the necessity of the Project and of acquiring easements, rights of way, and other interests in property along the new power line.
Defendants, however, responded by saying that the Siting Board declared the Project a necessity, not the appropriations. Further, Defendants argued that the easements sought by Plaintiff were overly broad and that the terms of the proposed easements went beyond the necessity to promote the public use. Lastly, Defendants claimed that when Plaintiff was ordered to remove distribution line rights from its appropriation petition, Plaintiff voluntarily abandoned its appropriation which required the trial court to enter a judgement against Plaintiff for the costs associated with defending against the distribution line rights contained within the proposed easements.
The trial court determined that the Siting Board’s certification of the Project and the testimony presented at the hearing established that the appropriations were necessary under Ohio law. Additionally, the trial court found that even if the Siting Board’s certificate did not create an irrebuttable presumption, the appropriations were still necessary because Plaintiff, as a public utility company, is in the best position to determine what is necessary and what is not. The trial court also held that Plaintiff did not abandon the appropriations simply by removing certain provisions from the petitions. Defendants then appealed to the 4th District Court of Appeals.
The following is brief explanation of the 4th District’s opinion that both agreed and disagreed with the trial court.
Rebuttable and irrebuttable presumption
Normally under Ohio law, a public utility company, like the Plaintiff, has to prove that it has the right to make an appropriation and/or that the appropriation is necessary. Plaintiff can do this by presenting evidence at an appropriation hearing and if the judge is persuaded, then Plaintiff will be allowed to take the property. The important part is that the burden of proof is on the public utility company.
However, there are a few situations where the law assumes that a public utility company or other state agency has the right to make an appropriation. Further, those presumptions are either rebuttable or irrebuttable. If the state agency has a rebuttable presumption, then the law will assume that agency has the right to make the appropriation or that the appropriation is necessary unless another party, like a landowner, can prove otherwise. In these situations, the burden of proof switches from the state agency to the landowner to prove that the state agency does not have the right to an appropriation or that the appropriation is not necessary. A state agency gets a rebuttable presumption when:
- A resolution or ordinance of the governing or controlling body, council, or board of the agency declares the necessity for the appropriation; or
- The public utility company presents evidence of the necessity for the appropriation.
A public utility company can also get an irrebuttable presumption about its right to an appropriation or the necessity of an appropriation. This means that no evidence can be presented to prove that the state agency does not have the right to an appropriation or that the appropriation is not necessary. A state agency receives an irrebuttable presumption when it receives approval by a state or federal regulatory authority of an appropriation.
In this case, the Defendants claimed that the Siting Board, which is a state regulatory authority, and the Ohio Power Board, the board of the agency, approved the project, not the appropriation. Therefore, Defendants argued that the rebuttable or irrebuttable presumptions did not apply to Plaintiff. Plaintiff on the other hand thought that both the rebuttable presumption and the irrebuttable presumption applied, and because the irrebuttable presumption applied, Plaintiff argued that the trial court did not need to review the easements. Plaintiff maintained judicial review of the easements was not necessary because a jury would decide the scope of the easement at a compensation hearing for the taking.
The trial court agreed with the Plaintiff and found that Plaintiff was entitled to an irrebuttable presumption of the necessity for the appropriation because of the Siting Board certification. Additionally, the trial court also found that Plaintiff was entitled to a rebuttable presumption because the Ohio Power Board declared the necessity for the appropriation of property interests for the Project.
However, the appeals court disagreed. The 4th District noted that the Plaintiff’s argument ultimately allows it to “take whatever property rights it wants. . .” and the only constraint on Plaintiff’s power to take would be how much a jury determines Plaintiff must pay for the taking. The appellate court found Defendants’ argument to be persuasive. The appellate court held that because the Siting Board and the Ohio Power Board only approved the project and not the specific appropriations at issue in this case, Plaintiff was not entitled to either a rebuttable or irrebuttable presumption. Although the Ohio Power Board recognized “the necessity of acquiring easements or rights of way in connection with” the project, the board only recognized such a necessity in a broad sense. The appellate court held that specific appropriations must be reviewed and approved before a state agency is entitled to the rebuttable or irrebuttable presumption under Ohio law.
Deference
The Defendants also argued that the trial court erred when it did not review the proposed easements. The trial court found that the Plaintiff is in the best position to determine the necessity of the easements. The trial court, therefore, did not review the proposed easments and defered to the expertise of the Plaintiff to determine the legality of the easements. Additionally, the court deferred any issues regarding the scope of the easements to a jury at the future compensation hearing.
The court of appeals disagreed with the trial court and held that the trial court should have reviewed the easements and should have made a separate necessity finding as to each one. The 4th District determined that courts are required to engage in the review of easements under Ohio law to make sure that (1) the state is not taking more property than necessary; and that the state is acting (2) fairly; (3) without bad faith; (4) without pretext; (5) without discrimination; and (6) without improper purpose. The appeals court reasoned that a trial court’s role is a critical constitutional check on the state’s power. The appellate court noted that it is a trial court’s duty to determine the extent of the taking and a jury’s duty to determine the amount of damages owed to a landowner as a result of the taking.
Abandonment
Another issue in this case was whether Plaintiff “abandoned” its appropriation for distribution lines. If Plaintiff was found to have abandoned its appropriation, then Defendants would be entitled to fees and other costs associated with defending their property interest.
In its initial appropriation petition, Plaintiff included an appropriation for distribution lines across the Defendants’ properties. However, during the appropriation hearing, Plaintiff conceded that it did not need an appropriation for distribution lines and only included the distribution line rights in its appropriation petition just in case it was needed. Plaintiffs admitted that their proposed easement was broader in scope than necessary, and the trial court ordered that Plaintiff remove the distribution line rights from its petitions. However, the trial court did not find that Plaintiff abandoned its appropriation for distribution lines and did not award Defendants any fees and costs for the alleged abandonment.
On appeal, Defendants argued that the trial court was wrong for not entering a judgment against the Plaintiff for fees and costs associated with defending against the appropriation for distribution lines. Plaintiff claimed that it did not abandon its petition because it essentially amended its petition, it didn’t drop its petition entirely. The trial court agreed with Plaintiff, reasoning that removing the word “distribution” from Plaintiff’s petition did not amount to an abandonment.
The court of appeals agreed with the trial court that Plaintiff did not abandon its appropriation petition but still found that Defendants were entitled to recover costs associated with defending their property interests. The 4th district found three scenarios when a landowner would be entitled to the costs associated with defending its property interest against a taking. Those three scenarios are:
- When an agency, like a public utilities company, voluntarily abandons the appropriation proceedings;
- When a trial court determines that the appropriation is not necessary or not for public use; and
- When a trial court determines, at any time during the appropriation proceedings, that the agency is not entitled to appropriate “particular property.”
Defendants argued that the court ordering Plaintiff to remove the distribution line rights from its petition constituted a voluntary abandonment under scenario 1. However, the 4th District found that Plaintiff could have only voluntarily abandoned the appropriation proceedings before the trial court’s order. The appellate court reasoned that the voluntary part of scenario 1 is absent once a court orders a party to remove an appropriation from its petition. The 4th District also found that scenario 2 did not apply to this case either. According to the appellate court, the trial court must dismiss the entire matter because the appropriations are not necessary or not for public use. Because that did not happen in this case, the 4th District determined that Defendants cannot recover costs under scenario 2.
Under scenario 3, however, the 4th District did find that Defendants were entitled to costs for defending against the distribution line rights in Plaintiff’s petition. In this scenario, an agency can bring appropriation proceedings for various parcels, property rights, or other property interests. Understanding that different rights can be disputed, the appellate court found that if a court determines an agency is not entitled to appropriate “particular property”, or in other words take a particular property interest, then the agency must reimburse the landowner for its costs and fees associated with defending that property interest. The 4th District determined that because the trial court ordered the Plaintiff to remove the distribution line rights from its petition, the trial court determined that the Plaintiff is not entitled to appropriate the “particular property” – or in this case, the distribution line rights. Therefore, the 4th District determined that Plaintiff must be ordered to pay Defendants for the costs associated with defending against the distribution line rights.
Conclusion
Although this ruling doesn’t dramatically change Ohio law, it helps clarify the requirements and procedures that must be followed when a state agency petitions for an appropriation. This ruling will be closely reviewed by public utility companies and other state agencies to ensure that they have all the required approvals before filing any petition for future appropriations. View the 4th District’s opinion for more details.
Tags: eminent domain, takings, appropriations, Utility Company, Easements, utility easement
Comments: 0
The Ohio General Assembly is off and running in its new session. Many bills that affect agriculture in Ohio are already on the move. Here’s a summary of those that are gaining the most momentum or attention.
Tax Conformity Bill – S.B. 18 and H.B. 48. The Senate has already passed its version of this bill, which conforms our state tax code with recent changes to the Internal Revenue Code made in the latest COVID-19 stimulus provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Both the Senate and the House will also exempt forgiven Paycheck Protection Program second-draw loan proceeds from the Commercial Activity Tax. The Senate version additionally exempts Bureau of Workers Compensation dividend rebates from the Commercial Activity Tax beginning in 2020, but the House bill does not. Both bills include “emergency” language that would make the provisions effective in time for 2020 tax returns.
Beginning farmers tax credits – H.B. 95. A slightly different version of this bill is returning after not passing in the last legislative session. The bi-partisan bill aims to assist beginning farmers through several temporary income tax credits:
- Businesses that sell or rent agricultural assets such as land, animals, facilities or equipment to certified beginning farmers can receive a 5% income tax credit for sales, a 10% of gross rental income credit for cash rents, and 15% of gross rental income for share rents.
- Certified beginning farmers can receive an income tax credit equal to the cost of participating in a certified financial management program.
Beginning farmers, among other requirements, are those in or seeking entry into farming in Ohio within the last ten years who are not a partner, member or shareholder with the owner of the agricultural assets and who have a net worth of less than $800,000 in 2021, which adjusts for inflation in subsequent years. Beginning farmers must be certified by the Ohio Department of Agriculture or a land grant institution. The House Agriculture and Conservation Committee will discuss the bill at its meeting on February 16.
Wind and solar facilities – S.B. 52. In addition to revising setback and safety specifications for wind turbines, this proposal would amend Ohio township zoning law to establish a referendum process for large wind and solar facility certificates. The bill would require a person applying for a certificate for a large wind or solar facility to notify the township trustees and share details of the proposed facility. That notification sets up opportunities for the township trustees or residents of the township to object to the application and submit the proposed application to a vote of township residents. A certificate would not take effect unless approved by a majority of the voters. A first hearing on S.B. 52 will be held on Tuesday, February 16 before the Senate Energy and Public Utilities Committee.
Grants for broadband services – H.B. 2 and S.B. 8. The Senate passed its version of this bill last week, which sets up a $20 million competitive grant program for broadband providers to extend broadband services throughout the state. The proposal would also allow broadband providers to use electric cooperative easements and poles, subject to procedures and restrictions. The bill had its second hearing before the House Finance Committee last week.
Eminent domain – H.B. 63. Based on a similar bill that didn’t pass last session, this bill changes eminent domain law in regard to property taken for the use of recreational trails, which include public trails used for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, ski touring, canoeing and other non-motorized recreational travel. H.B. 63 would allow a landowner to submit a written request asking a municipality or township to veto the use of eminent domain for a recreational trail within its borders. The bill would also allow a landowner to object to a use of eminent domain for any purpose at any time prior to a court order for the taking, rather than limiting that time period to ten days as in current law. The bill had its first hearing before the House Civil Justice Committee last week.
Minimum wage increases. S. B. 51 and H.B. 69. Bills on each side of the General Assembly propose gradually increasing the state minimum wage to $15, but have different paths for reaching that amount. S.B. 51 proposes increasing the wage to $12/hour in 2022, followed by $1/hour increases each year and reaching $15 by 2025, which is when a federal bill proposes to establish the $15 minimum wage. H.B. 69 begins at $10/hour in 2022 with $1/hour increases annually, reaching $15 in 2027. S.B. 51 was referred last week to the Workforce and Higher Education Committee and H.B. 69 was referred to the Commerce and Labor Committee.
Tags: Ohio legislation, beginning farmer, solar energy, wind energy, township zoning, eminent domain, minimum wage, broadband, COVID, Paycheck Protection Program, commercial activity tax
Comments: 0
Here’s our latest gathering of agricultural law news that you may want to know:
Congress considers bankruptcy code changes with Family Farmer Relief Act of 2019. Senator Grassley and Representative Delgado introduced companion bills in their respective chambers of Congress that would modify the definition of “family farmer” in the federal bankruptcy code. The change would raise the operating debt limit for a family farmer from $3.2 million as listed in the U.S. Code to $10 million. Sometimes a small change can make a big difference. In chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code, a “family farmer” has special options that other chapters do not offer, such as the power to determine a long-term payment schedule and pay the present market value of the asset instead of the amount due on the loan. Many farmers had not been able to take advantage of the special bankruptcy provisions because of the low debt limit, but that may change. For more information on the bills, click HERE for S.897 and HERE for H.R. 2336.
Congress also considers changing the number of daily hours a driver may transport livestock. The Transporting Livestock Across America Safely Act would instruct the Secretary of Transportation to amend the rules governing drivers who transport certain animals. The changes would loosen restrictions on the number of hours that drivers may drive, and increase the types of activities that are exempt from counting toward the maximum time. Travel under 300 miles would be exempt from the hours of service (HOS) and electronic logging (ELD) requirements. Both chambers of Congress are considering this bill, and both companion bills are currently in committee. For more information on the bills and to learn about the changes proposed, click HERE for S.1255 and HERE for H.R. 487.
It’s not too late to submit comments to the FDA about its potential cannabidiol rulemaking. Electronic or written comments can be sent to the FDA until July 2nd, although the deadline to request to make an oral presentation or comment at tomorrow’s hearing has passed. Click HERE for more information from the Federal Register about the May 31st hearing and submitting comments.
Meatpackers face second class-action lawsuit, and R-CALF refiles. In our last edition of The Harvest, we talked about a new class-action lawsuit filed in Illinois federal court by a number of cattle ranchers, including R-CALF, against the nation’s largest meatpacking companies. Now, another lawsuit has been filed in Minnesota federal court also alleging a price fixing conspiracy by the meatpackers. The second lawsuit is being brought by a cattle futures trader, rather than a rancher. After the second suit was filed, R-CALF voluntarily dismissed its case in Illinois to refile it in Minnesota. This refiling allows the lawsuits to be heard by the same court.
Tyson sues the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. Tyson, which is named as a defendant in the class action suits we just mentioned, is a plaintiff in a case against the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. The company alleges that a FSIS inspector falsified an inspection of 4,622 hogs, which were intermingled with another 8,000 carcasses, at one of its Iowa facilities in 2018. The company claims that the false inspection required it to destroy all of the carcasses, and cost nearly $2.5 million in total losses and expenses. The complaint, which is available HERE, alleges four counts: negligence, negligent inspection, negligent retention, and negligent supervision. The lawsuit is based on the legal principle that an employer is liable for the actions of its employee.
Ohio Case Law Update
Plaintiff must prove that a defendant wedding barn operator’s breach of a duty caused her harm. Conrad Botzum Farmstead is a privately operated wedding and event barn located in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area and on lease from the National Park Service. The plaintiff in the case was attending a wedding at the barn, where she broke her ankle while dancing on a wooden deck. The jury trial found that the barn operator was 51% at fault for her injuries, and awarded the plaintiff compensation. However, the barn operator appealed the decision and won. The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff did not introduce sufficient evidence to prove that any act or breach of duty by the barn operator actually or proximately caused the plaintiff to fall and break her ankle. The case raises standard questions of negligence, but it is worth noting in the Ag Law Blog because the court did not base its decision on Ohio’s agritourism immunity statute. The case is cited as Tyrrell v. Conrad Botzum Farmstead, 2019-Ohio-1874 (9th Dist.), and the decision is available HERE.
Ohio History Connection can use eminent domain to cancel Moundbuilders Country Club’s lease. A Licking County judge ruled in early May that the Ohio History Connection, formerly the Ohio Historical Society, can reclaim full ownership of land that it had leased to a country club. The Moundbuilders County Club has operated a golf course around prehistoric Native American earthworks for decades under a long-term lease with the state. The Ohio History Connection sought to have the lease terminated in order to give the public full access to the earthworks as part of a World Heritage List nomination. The judge viewed the request as sufficiently in the public interest to apply Ohio’s eminent domain laws.
Tags: bankruptcy, roadway law, CBD, wedding barn, eminent domain
Comments: 0
Written by: Chris Hogan, Law Fellow, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
Several major pipeline projects, which plan to crisscross the state, are in the final stages of preparation. As part of the planning process for a project, pipeline builders plot the path that the pipeline will travel across the state. That path inevitably crosses private landowners’ property. Some landowners may feel overwhelmed trying to understand the rights of private pipeline companies to cross private property in Ohio. The frequently asked questions discussed below should help answer some of the common questions about pipeline projects in Ohio.
Can a pipeline company come on to my property to conduct a survey?
Yes. Prior to building a pipeline, pipeline companies must select a route where the pipeline is to be constructed. A pipeline project usually crosses private property along a proposed route. When a pipeline must cross private property along the project’s route, the pipeline company will ask the landowner for an easement that allows for pipeline construction on the property. However, even before signing an easement, a survey of the property may be necessary to determine the feasibility of constructing a pipeline on the property. Therefore, a pipeline company may need to enter a landowner’s private property to conduct a survey.
In Ohio, the law allows private companies that are organized “for transporting natural or artificial gas, petroleum, coal or its derivatives . . . through tubing, pipes or conduits” to enter upon private land to examine or survey for pipelines. This means that a pipeline company organized for these specific purposes does have the right in Ohio to enter onto a landowner’s property to conduct a private survey for the purpose of pipeline construction.
A pipeline company is telling me that they might use Eminent Domain to acquire my property. Is that legal?
Most likely, yes. A pipeline company may negotiate an easement with landowners which compensates landowners in exchange for the right to build a pipeline. However, landowners may not want to give a pipeline company the right to cross their property. In that scenario, pipeline companies have the option of crossing a landowner’s property by using eminent domain. Eminent domain is the taking of private property for public purposes with compensation.
In Ohio, the same law that allows for companies that are organized “for transporting natural or artificial gas, petroleum, coal or its derivatives . . . through tubing, pipes or conduits” to enter upon private land for survey also allows those same companies to use eminent domain to take private land. The law states that a company organized for the above purpose “may appropriate so much of such land, or any right or interest [to the land], as is deemed necessary for the laying down or building of pipes . . .” This suggests that pipeline companies have the power of eminent domain in Ohio.
Some argue that the law only grants eminent domain rights for transporting gas, and does not extend the right of eminent domain for the transport of gas derivatives such as ethane. While there is not strong legal support for this argument, it is under litigation in Ohio courts.
To use eminent domain, the pipeline company must prove that the landowner and the company were not able to reach an agreement about granting a pipeline easement and that the taking of the pipeline easement is “necessary.” A pipeline company must establish that the taking of property will serve a “public use.” Ohio courts have noted that the term public use is flexible. Accordingly, Ohio courts have held that private pipelines are a public use if those pipelines provide an economic benefit to Ohio. After establishing necessity and public use, the pipeline company must follow the procedures for eminent domain in Ohio Revised Code Chapter 163.
For an interstate pipeline that runs between Ohio and another state, federal law could allow a company to use eminent domain to obtain land from unwilling landowners. Federal law states that a company may acquire property rights for a gas pipeline if the company has obtained a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the company and landowner have not been able to agree on compensation for the pipeline easement. See 15 USC §717(F).
What about the pipeline cases that are in court right now, do those affect my rights?
Ohio landowners have probably heard about several high-profile pipeline projects that are planning to cut across the state. Some landowners have challenged the construction of these pipeline projects on their property. These landowners are challenging the right of the pipeline companies to use eminent domain to acquire an easement on their property. Two pipeline projects in Ohio are of particular interest: Kinder Morgan’s Utopia Project and Rover Pipeline LLC.
A court in Wood County, Ohio decided in 2016 that Kinder Morgan’s Utopia Project, which plans to run across Ohio and into Canada, did not have eminent domain authority. The court concluded that the pipeline did not “serve the public of the State of Ohio or any public in the United States.” The court based its conclusion on the fact that Utopia did not provide a benefit to Ohio. However, Kinder Morgan quickly appealed that case to Ohio’s Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, this opinion is on hold while a higher court decides whether it agrees with the lower court’s interpretation of the eminent domain law.
A second high-profile pipeline case involves the right of Rover Pipeline LLC to use eminent domain for an interstate pipeline project. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued this pipeline project a certificate of public convenience and necessity on February 2, 2017. As a result, Rover Pipeline LLC is moving forward with construction on landowners’ property, because a federal court found that the pipeline company has eminent domain authority.
So how do these court cases affect landowners? First, landowners should be aware that other pipeline projects in Ohio likely have eminent domain authority, if they meet the requirements for eminent domain described by Ohio law. Second, landowners should be aware that that the pipeline case that began in Wood County and is currently being appealed is still pending. It is important to note that this case is reviewing the Utopia Project’s right to use eminent domain in Ohio. Therefore, this does not mean that all pipeline companies in Ohio no longer have the right to use eminent domain to acquire private property in Ohio. Instead, this case will determine the fate of that particular pipeline project and whether or not that project has the right to use eminent domain to acquire an easement. In the meantime, pipeline companies continue to have the right to use eminent domain in Ohio.
More information on pipelines in Ohio and resources for landowners considering signing an easement is available here.
