In re Appropriation of Easements for Highway Purposes

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Appropriation of Easements for Highway Purposes

305 N.E.2d 811, 36 Ohio St. 2d 181, 65 Ohio Op. 2d 400, 1973 Ohio LEXIS 302

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1973

DocketNo. 73-389

StatusPublished

This text of 305 N.E.2d 811 (In re Appropriation of Easements for Highway Purposes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Appropriation of Easements for Highway Purposes, 305 N.E.2d 811, 36 Ohio St. 2d 181, 65 Ohio Op. 2d 400, 1973 Ohio LEXIS 302 (Ohio 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The 30-day filing requirement for a petition of intent to appeal, imposed upon property owners by [182]*182R. C. 5519.02, is a mandatory predicate to tlie jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas with respect to the determination of amounts other than those fixed by the Director of Highways. The syllabus in Masheter v. Huysman (1964), 177 Ohio St. 118, reads as follows:

“In a proceeding by the Director of Highways to appropriate real property for highway purposes, it is essential under the provisions of Section 5519.02, Revised Code, for a landowner whose property is being appropriated and who is dissatisfied with the money deposit made by the director to file a written petition, in duplicate, of his intention to appeal within the 30 days prescribed by the statute, and, if he fails to do so, the Court of Common Pleas is without jurisdiction over the proceeding.”

See, also, Cincinnati v. Bossert (1968), 16 Ohio St. 2d 76, and Toledo v. Custer (1970), 24 Ohio St. 2d 152.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, CorrigaN, SterN, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. BrowN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The 30-day filing requirement for a petition of intent to appeal, imposed upon property owners by [182]*182R. C. 5519.02, is a mandatory predicate to tlie jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas with respect to the determination of amounts other than those fixed by the Director of Highways. The syllabus in Masheter v. Huysman (1964), 177 Ohio St. 118, reads as follows:

“In a proceeding by the Director of Highways to appropriate real property for highway purposes, it is essential under the provisions of Section 5519.02, Revised Code, for a landowner whose property is being appropriated and who is dissatisfied with the money deposit made by the director to file a written petition, in duplicate, of his intention to appeal within the 30 days prescribed by the statute, and, if he fails to do so, the Court of Common Pleas is without jurisdiction over the proceeding.”

See, also, Cincinnati v. Bossert (1968), 16 Ohio St. 2d 76, and Toledo v. Custer (1970), 24 Ohio St. 2d 152.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, CorrigaN, SterN, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. BrowN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 N.E.2d 811, 36 Ohio St. 2d 181, 65 Ohio Op. 2d 400, 1973 Ohio LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-appropriation-of-easements-for-highway-purposes-ohio-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack